巴斯夏《论法律》the Law（中英对照）

（英译本）前言
沃尔特·E．威廉姆斯 著 于庆生 译
在读到弗里德里克·巴斯夏经典的《论法律》（The Law）之前，我肯定已经有四十岁了。一个匿名的人——对他，我要永远地表示感谢——主动地给我寄来一份抄本。读过这本书之后，我确信，没有接触过巴斯夏，人文学科的教育（a liberal-arts education）便是不完整的。阅读巴斯夏使我深深地意识到，过去的时间伴随着走进一个又一个的死胡同的失败，全都浪费在组织我的生活哲学之上了。对我来说，《论法律》并没有产生一种哲学的转变，它是在我关于自由和公正的人类行为之思考中建立了秩序。
许多哲学家都对关于自由的话语作出了重要的贡献，巴斯夏便是其中之一。但是，巴斯夏最伟大的贡献是，他将这一话语带出了象牙塔，并将关于自由的思想表述的如此清晰，以至于即便是未曾受过教育的人也能理解它们，即便是国家主义者（statists）也不能混淆它们。对于说服我们的同胞，个人自由所具有的道德优越性而言，清晰性是至关重要的。
与其他人一样，巴斯夏确认，对于自由，最大的个别威胁便是政府。请注意他用来帮助我们识别和理解类似将掠夺合法化的邪恶的政府行为的清晰性。巴斯夏说，“注意，如果法律从某些人那里拿走了属于他们的东西，并将它给予了并不拥有它的其他的人。注意，如果法律通过作出某个公民自身如果不经由犯罪行为便不能作出的行为，使得他以另一个人为代价而获得了利益。”通过这种将掠夺合法化的准确的描述，我们不能否认这样的结论，即大多数——包括我们自己的——政府的活动，是将掠夺合法化的，或者是为了追求现代化，而将盗窃合法化的。
弗里德里克·巴斯夏可以很容易地成为我们的《独立宣言》（Declaration of Independence）的签署者的同路人。这些签署者关于自由和政府的恰当作用的远见卓识是用下列隽永的词句而留存于世的：“我们认为下面这些真理是不言而喻的：人人生而平等，造物者赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。为了保障这些权利，人类才在他们之间建立政府……”。巴斯夏重复了同样的卓识，他说，“生命、官能和产品——换言之，即个性、自由和财产——便是一个人。尽管狡诈的政治领导人十分狡猾，这三个上帝所赐予的礼物也都先于所有人类的立法，并且高于它。”巴斯夏也像我们的缔造者一样给出了同样的基本理由，他说，“并不是因为人们制定了法律，生命、自由和财产才存在。相反，正是生命、自由和财产的事先存在，才导致人们去首先制定法律。”关于自然权利或天赋权利（natural or God-given rights）的表述，没有比在我们的《独立宣言》和《论法律》中作出的更为杰出的了。
巴斯夏将他对于自由的希望置于美国的情形，他说，“……看看美国。世界上没有任何一个国家比它更能将其法律限定在适当的领域当中：对于每一个人自由和财产都加以保护。正是基于此，世界上没有任何一个国家比它更能将其社会秩序奠定在坚实的基础之上。”巴斯夏写作于1850年，他指出了当时美国有所缺陷的两个领域：“奴隶制是通过法律对于自由的侵害。保护关税（the protective tariff）是通过法律对于财产的侵害。”
如果巴斯夏在今天还能健在的话，他会对我们没有能够将法律控制在适当的领域当中而感到失望。在一个半多世纪的过程中，我们已经创制了超过五万多部法律。它们中的大多数都许可国家对那些不能对他人发起冒犯的人进行冒犯。这些法律的范围从对于私人机构和社会保险“交款”（Social Security “contributions”）的禁烟法，到许可法和最低工资法。在每一种情形中，那些坚决要求和主张其天赋权利不容侵犯的人，最终可能在我们政府的手中被迫害致死。
巴斯夏通过主张，社会主义者想要扮演上帝，解释了对于和平地限制、自愿的交换和惩罚不容侵犯的渴求的法律的需要。社会主义者将人们视为构成社会组织的原材料。对他们——精英——来说，“人民和立法者之间的关系就像是粘土和陶艺家之间的关系一样。”对于有着这种观念的人，我在《论法律》中发现，巴斯夏表示出的只有愤怒，当他抨击人类中那些善者（do-gooders）和自称为统治者的人时，他说，“啊，可怜的造物！你认为你是如此的伟大！你断定人类会是如此的渺小！你希望改造一切！你为什么不改造你自己呢？这项任务是你完全能够胜任的。”
巴斯夏是个乐观主义者，他认为为自由辩护时雄辩的理由可以挽救这个时代；但是，历史并没有站在他这一边。人类历史是一种通过教会，但主要还是通过政府，由精英的私人行为进行的系统的、任意的滥用和控制。在数以亿计的不幸的灵魂已经主要地被他们自己的政府屠杀的地方，那是个悲惨的历史。一个距今二三百年的历史学家，可能会认为，只在人类之一小部分——主要是在西方世界——中存在的自由，只在其历史的一小部分——上个世纪或者上两个世纪——中存在的自由，是无法解释的一种历史的奇迹。这个历史学家可能也会发现，奇迹只是一种暂时的现象，人类会回到事务的传统状态——任意的控制和滥用——之中。
但愿，历史将会证明，悲观的评价是错误的。社会主义和共产主义理念之可获尊重性的全球范围的崩溃，表明了还是有一线希望的。另一个充满希望的迹象是技术的创新，这使得政府获得其公民的信息和控制他们更加困难。诸如信息访问、通信和电子货币交易等创新，将会使得政府企图进行的控制更为昂贵和更不可能。这些技术创新将会使得世界公民之间的相互交流和交易越来越多，而无需政府的知晓、制裁或许可。
共产主义的崩溃和技术的创新，伴随着对巴斯夏思想的强劲地自由市场组织的推动，这是关于美国自由之未来，我能够说出的最为乐观的事。美国人分担了一项可怕的负担和道德责任。如果自由之火在美国熄灭，那它注定在任何地方都要熄灭的。更为通晓巴斯夏的清晰的思路，这是在我们的美国同胞中，重新点燃对于自由之精神的尊重和爱戴，并且允许自由之精神的复苏的过程中，迈出的重要的一步。
-----------------------------------------------------------------正文-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE LAW(1850初版)
L.1
The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!
法律变态了！政府的警察权力也随之变态！我想说，我们的法律不仅偏离了它正当的目的，而且为着完全相反的目的而制定！法律变成了每种贪婪的武器！法律不是去阻止罪行，它本身反而变成邪恶的罪行，而本来期望邪恶得到它的惩罚！
L.2
If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.
如果这是真实的，那么它是很严重的事实，道德的责任要求我呼请我的同国公民关注这一点。
Life Is a Gift from God
生命是上帝赐给我们的礼物
L.3
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life.
我们拥有上帝赐给我们的礼物，它包括了所有其它的。这个礼物就是生命——物质的，智力的和道德的生命。
L.4
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
但是生命不能自我维持。造物主将保护，发展和完善生命的责任交给了我们。为了我们能够完成这一点，祂又给了我们一大堆一时不可理解的能力。然后祂将我们置于各种各样的自然资源当中。通过我们的能力对这些自然资源的应用，我们将他们变成产品，然后使用。为了生命能够按上帝指定的过程运行，这个过程是必要的。
L.5
Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
生命，能力，产品——换句话说，个体，自由，财产——这就是人。在面临富于技巧的政治领导者的狡猾的恶意时，这三种上帝赐予的礼物先于并高于所有人类的立法。
L.6
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
生命，自由和财产并非因人类已经制定的法律而存在。相反，实际上生命，自由和财产存在在前才引起人们去制定法律。
What Is Law ?
什么是法律？
L.7
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
那么，什么是法律？它是合法保护自身的个体性权利的集合性机构（collective organization）。
L.8
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
我们每个人都有一种自然权利——源于上帝——去保护他的人身，他的自由和他的财产。这是生命的三项基本的要求，对其中任何一个的保护都完全的依赖于其它两个。因为除去我们的个体之后，什么又是我们的能力？或者除去我们的能力之后，什么又是财产？
L.9
If every person has the right to defend even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
如果每个人都有权利甚至通过强制力去捍卫——他的人身，他的自由和他的财产，那么随之而来的一群人都有权利去组织和支持一种共同的强制力经常性的来保护这些权利。这样集合性权利的原则——它存在的理由，它的合法性——便是建立在个人权利的基础之上的。并且保护这种集合性权利的共同强制力在逻辑上除了作为这种目的的代用物之外不应再有任何其它的目的和使命。这样，既然一个个体不能合法的使用强制力侵犯另一个人的人身，自由或财产，那么共同强制力——因为同样的原因——也不能合法的被用来破坏任何个人或任何群体的人参，自由或财产。
L.10
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
这样一种强制力的变态将会——在两种情形中——违背我们的前提。赐予我们强制力是为了捍卫我们自己的个体权利。谁敢说赐予我们强制力是为了破坏我们兄弟的平等权利？既然个体不能合法的使用强制力去破坏他人的权利，难道不能合乎逻辑的得出这同样的原则亦适用于共同强制力？它不过是组织起来的个体强制力的联合体罢了。
L.11
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
如果这是对的，那么以下结论最明显不过了：法律是合法保护的自然权利的机构。它是代替个体强制力的共同强制力。并且这种共同强制力只能去做个体强制力拥有自然和合法权利去做的事情：保护人身，自由和财产；维护每个人的权利，促成正义统治我们所有的人。
A Just and Enduring Government
一个公正和持久的政府
L.12
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable—whatever its political form might be.
如果一个国家建立在这个基础之上，在我看来秩序将在人们之间形成，包括思想和行为上的。在我看来这样的国家将会拥有最简单和最容易接受的政府，你所能想象的经济的，有限的，非强迫的，公正的和持久的政府——无论它属于哪种政治形式。
L.13
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
在这样的管理之下，每个人都会理解因他的存在所拥有的权利和应承担的责任。假如他的人身得到尊重，他的劳动可以自由选择，以及他劳动的成果得到保护免于所有非正义的攻击，没有人会与这样的政府进行争论。当我们获得成功的时候，我们无须为我们的成功感谢国家。而且相反，当我们失败的时候，我们也不应当因为我们的不幸而责备国家，如同庄园主不应当因为冰雹和霜冻而责备国家一样。假如由这种概念的政府统治，人们对国家的感觉只有无价的安全的赐福。
L.14
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
可以作进一步的说明，感谢国家在私人事务中的不干涉，我们的需要和他们的满足将以合乎逻辑的方式发展。我们不会看到贫穷的家庭在他们获得面包之前便去寻求文学指导。我们不会看到城市人口会移居于花费高昂的乡村地区，也不会看到乡村人口会移居于花费昂贵的城市。我们不会看到由立法决定所引起的大规模的资本，劳动和人口的转移。
L.15
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
由于国家制造的这些转移将使我们生存的资源变得不确定和不安全。而且，这样的法案增加了政府的责任。
The Complete Perversion of the Law
法律的完全变态
L.16
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
但是，不幸的，法律没有手段来约束它本身履行它恰当的功能。当它超越它恰当的功能的界限时，在一些不合逻辑和有争议的事件中它便没有履行它的功能。甚至法律再进一步；它的作用直接与它本来的目的相违背。法律被用来破坏它自己的对象：它被应用于破坏原本期望它来维持的正义；去限制和破坏那些它真正的目的应当尊重的权利。法律将集合性的强制力置于那些肆无忌惮的人之手，这些人希望毫无风险的利用其他人的人身，自由和财产。它将抢劫变成一种权利，以保护抢劫。并且它将合法的防御变成罪行，以惩罚合法的防御。
L.17
How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?
法律的这种变态是如何实现的？这样的结果又是什么?
L.18
The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.
法律的变态是通过两种完全不同原因的影响：愚蠢的贪婪和错误的仁慈。让我们先谈第一点。
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
人类一种毁灭性的倾向
L.19
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
自我保护和自我发展是所有人中共同的愿望。如果每个人可以不受限制的使用他的能力并自由的处置他的劳动成果，社会进步就不会停止，不会中断，不会失败。
L.20
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man—in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
但是在人们中间也有另外一种倾向。只要可能，他们总是期望通过消耗他人生活并获得成功。这不是轻率鲁莽的指控。也不是来源于阴郁和不仁慈的精神。历史记载可以对这一点的真实性提供见证：不断的战争，大规模迁移，宗教迫害，一般性的奴役，商业中的不诚实，以及垄断控制。这种毁灭性的欲望存在于人的本性之中——在那种原始的，普遍的和难以抑制的本能中，驱使他以最小可能的辛劳来满足他的欲望。
Property and Plunder
财产和抢劫
L.21
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
人只能通过不断的劳动才能生活并满足他自己的需要；通过对自然资源不断的应用他自己的能力。这个过程便是财产的来源。
L.22
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
但是一个人通过夺取和消耗他人劳动产品来生活并满足他的需要的情况也是真实的。这个过程便是抢劫的来源。
L.23
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
现在既然人自然的倾向于避免辛劳——劳动本身既是辛劳——随之而来的只要是抢劫易于工作的时候，人们将会趋向于抢劫。历史非常清晰的表明了这一点。在这种条件下，宗教和道德都不能阻止它。
L.24
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
那么，什么时候抢劫会停止？当抢劫变得比劳动更辛劳更危险的时候它才会停止。那么很明显，法律的恰当目的便是使用它集合性的强制力的权力去阻止这种以抢劫代替工作的毁灭性倾向。所有法律的手段应当保护财产并惩罚抢劫。
L.25
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
但是，一般的，法律是由一个人或一个阶层的人所制定。既然没有一种统治性的强制力的许可和支持法律便不能运作，这种强制力必须授予那些制定法律的人。
L.26
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
这个事实，与存在于人们心中的以最小可能的努力来满足他自己需要的这种毁灭性倾向结合在一起。这样就很容易理解，为什么法律不去阻止非正义，反而变成难以抑制的非正义的武器。很容易理解为什么法律会被立法者用来不同程度的毁灭共同体中的其他人，通过奴役来破坏他们的人身独立，通过强迫来破坏他们的自由，通过抢劫来破坏他们的财产。这样做是为了使那些制定法律的人获益，与他所拥有的权力相称。
Victims of Lawful Plunder
合法抢劫的受害者
L.27
Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter—by peaceful or revolutionary means—into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.
当人们成为非正义的受害者的时候他们自然的会反抗。这样，当抢劫依据为那些法律制定者的利益而制定的法律而组织起来的时候，所有抢劫的群体都会以某种方式——和平的或革命的——参与法律的制定当中。根据他们的文明程度，这些抢劫的群体在他们企图获得政治权力的时候，可能会谋划以两种完全不同的目标：或者他们期望终止合法的抢劫（非法抢劫），或者他们期望参与合法抢劫。
L.28
Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!
当后者在合法抢劫的受害者大众中盛行的时候，对于这个国家而言是种悲哀的事情，他们会反过来抓住权力去制定法律！
L.29
Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injustices general. As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlightenment than they possess. ) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.
在那种情况发生之前，极少数人对其他许多人的合法抢劫的实行，通常的情况是参与制定法律的这种权利只限于极少数人。但是接着，参与制定法律会变得普遍。然后，人们会通过普遍性的抢劫来寻求他们利益冲突的平衡。人们不去寻找社会非正义的根源，他们反而将这种非正义一般化。抢劫的群体只要获得政治权力，他们便会建立一套报复其他群体的系统。他们不会停止合法的抢劫。（这个停止合法抢劫的目标需要比他们所拥有的文明程度更高的要求）反而，他们会效仿他们邪恶的祖先参与这种合法的抢劫，哪怕这种抢劫侵害了他们自己的利益。
L.30
It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution—some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.
在正义支配之前，似乎必然的每个人都会遭受痛苦的回报——一些人是因为他们的邪恶，一些人是因为他们理解力的缺乏。
The Results of Legal Plunder
合法抢劫的结果
L.31
It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.
没有比这个能引起社会更大的改变和更大的邪恶了：将法律变成一种抢劫的工具。
L.32
What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.
这样一种变态的结果是什么？这需要许多书卷来描述它们。在此我们必须只限于指出最显著的结果。
L.33
In the first place, it erases from everyone's conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.
首先，它从每个人的道德感中擦去正义和非正义的区别。
L.34
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
除非法律在一定程度上得到尊重，没有社会能够存在。让法律得到尊重的最安全的途径是使它们值得尊重。当法律和道德互相否定的时候，公民将面临一种痛苦的选择，要么丢弃他的道德感，要么丢弃他对法律的尊重。这两种邪恶同等，所以一个人在它们之间抉择是困难的。
L.35
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are "just" because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
法律的本性是维持正义。这种情况是如此的真实，以至于在人们的思想中，法律和正义是一回事。我们所有人都有一种强烈的观念相信，任何合法的同时也是正当的。这种信念是如此的普遍以至于许多人错误地认为事情是“正当”的，原因在于法律这样规定。这样，为了使抢劫在人们的道德心看来是正当和神圣的，只需用法律发布和认可它就可以了。奴役，限制和垄断控制不仅可以在那些从中谋利的人中找到辩护者，也可以从那些遭受这些侵犯的人中找到辩护者。
The Fate of Non-Conformists
不顺从者的命运
L.36
If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that "You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests."
如果你对这些制度的道德提出疑问，有人就会放肆的对你说“你是一个危险的革新者，一个乌托邦者，一个理论家，一个破坏者；你想粉碎社会所依赖的基础。”
L.37
If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: "That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate National industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force."*1
如果你对道德或政治科学发表演讲，就会发现政府性组织以这样的思路请求政府：“科学不能再像以前那样只从自由贸易（自由，财产和正义）的角度来教导了，而且，将来，科学必须特别的从管理国家工业的事实和法律的角度来教导（事实和法律与自由，财产和正义相对立）。在政府资助的教育位置上，教师必须严格的限制，避免最轻微程度的危及目前强制实施的法律应当获得的尊重。”
L.38
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.
这样，如果存在一部认可奴役或垄断控制，压迫或抢劫的法律，无论以什么形式，“奴役或垄断控制，压迫或抢劫”甚至都不会被提及。因为，如何来谈及这些而又不损害法律所需要的尊重呢？更进一步，道德和政治经济必须从这种法律的观点来教导；假定它一定是正义的法律仅仅因为它是法律。
L.39
Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.
法律这种糟糕的变态的另一个影响是对政治热情和冲突以及一般的政治学带来一种言过其实的重要性。
L.40
I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.
我能够以一千种方式证实这种结论。但是，通过例证的方式，我将自己专注于一个最近占据每个人的思想的主题：普选权。
Who Shall Judge?
谁来裁决？
L.41
The followers of Rousseau's school of thought—who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times—will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage—using the word in its strictest sense—is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.
卢梭思想学派的追随者——他们认为自己已经远远跑到时代前面去了，不过我认为他们落后这个时代20个世纪——在这一点上不会同意我。但是普选权——在它精确的意义上使用这个词——不是那些如果审查或质疑它们就是一种罪行的神圣教义。实际上，可能产生反对普选权的严肃意见。
L.42
In the first place the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others. Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?
首先“普遍”这个词隐藏了大量的谬论。举例来说，法国有36百万人口。这样，为了使选举权变得普遍，应该有36百万投票人。但是最大限度的系统只允许9百万人来投票。四个人中就有三个人被排除出去。不仅如此，他们是被那四分之一的人排除的。这四分之一的人拿出无能力的原则作为他们排除其他人的理由。那么，普选权意味着只是对那些有能力的人而言。但是仍然有这样一个事实问题：谁是有能力的？被确定为无能力的群体仅仅是未成年人，女人，神经错乱的人和犯了一定罪行的成年人吗？
The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted
限制投票的理由
L.43
A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.
对这个主题更进一步的审查向我们表明产生选举权的动机是立于无能力的假设的基础上的。这个动机是说那些选举人或投票人不仅仅为他们自己行使权力，也为每个人行使。
L.44
The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.
在这一点上，这个最大范围的选举系统和最大限制的选举系统是一回事。它们的差别仅仅在于什么是无能力。这不是原则的差异，仅近是程度的差异。
L.45
If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one's birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.
如果——就如我们当代希腊和罗马思想学派的那些共和主义者所宣称的——人一出生就拥有投票权，成人将女人和孩子排除在外的投票权亦是不公正的。为什么要将他们排除在外？因为他们被假设为无能力。无能力为什么作为排除的动机？因为承受投票后果的不仅仅是投票人自己；因为每票都会涉及和影响整个共同体中的每个人；因为共同体中的人在涉及到他们社会保障和生存所依赖的法案时有权利要求某些保护。（universal suffrage:以上几楼翻译成“全民公决”比较好。 ）
The Answer Is to Restrict the Law
答案是要限制法律
L.46
I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.
我知道在回答这个问题上有人会说什么；而反对意见又可能说什么。但这不是解决这个实质争议的地方。在此我想仅仅关注有关撼动，激励和瓦解国家的全民公决的争议，如果法律一直是它应当的那样，这种争议几乎将丧失它所有的重要性。
L.47
In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
实际上，如果法律被限制用来保护所有的人身，所有的自由和所有的财产；如果法律不过是个人自我防御权利的组织化联合；如果法律是所有强迫和抢劫的绊脚石，阻止者和惩罚者——我们公民还会对公民权的范围争论这么多吗？
L.48
Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?
在这些情境下，票决权利的范围还可能危及最高的利益和公共和平吗？那些被排除在外的阶层还可能拒绝和平的期待投票权的到来吗？那些有权利票决的人还可能小心翼翼的捍卫他们的特殊权利吗？
L.49
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?
如果法律被限制在其恰当的功能，每个人在法律上的利益都将是一致的。在这些情境之下，那些投票的人不能给那些没有投票的人制造麻烦这一点不是很清晰吗？
The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder
合法抢劫的毁灭性观念
L.50
But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.
但是在另一方面，想象一下这种毁灭性的原则已经引入社会：在机构，规章，保护或者鼓励等等借口之下，法律将一个人的财产拿来然后给与另一个人；法律将所有人的共同财产拿走然后给与少数人——不论是庄园主，工厂主，船主，艺人或喜剧演员。在这些情境下，那么当然的每个阶层都会热衷于抓住法律，并且逻辑上就是这样。
L.51
The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote—and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. They will say to you:
那些被排除在外的阶层就会激烈的要求他们票决的权利——若得不到还不如推翻社会。甚至乞讨者和流浪者也会向你证明他们亦拥有无可争辩的票决权。他们会这样说：
L.52
"We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law—in privileges and subsidies—to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth. Thus, since everyone else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man's plunder. To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don't tell us beggars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!"
“不付税我们就不能买葡萄酒，烟草制品，或者盐。我们支付的一部分税通过法律给与了——以特殊权利和补助金的形式——那些比我们富有的人。另外一些人使用法律提高面包，肉类，铁或布料的价格。这样，既然其他的每个人都为他自己的利益来使用法律，我们也会同样的为我们自己的利益去使用法律。我们要求法律给与救济的权利，这是贫穷人的抢劫。为了获得这种权利，我们也应当成为投票者和立法者，这是为了我们可以以与我们这个阶层相称的程度组织乞讨者，就像你们以与你们阶层相称的程度组织保护措施。现在，不要告诉我们乞讨者说，你们将为我们制订法律，然后将我们扔来扔去，就像Mimerel先生提议用600，000法郎让我们保持沉默一样，如同扔给我们一根骨头去咬。我们还有别的要求。总之，我们希望为我们自己讨价还价，就像其他阶层已经为他们自己所做的那样。”
L.53
And what can you say to answer that argument!
那么，对此观点你如何回答！
Perverted Law Causes Conflict
变态的法律导致冲突
L.54
As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires inside the legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.
只要社会认可法律可以偏离它真正的目的——即法律可以侵犯财产而不是保护财产——那么每个人都想参与制订法律，以保护他自己免于被抢劫或使用法律去抢劫。政治问题将会变得有偏见，变成谁支配的问题，并将所有人吸入进去。议院的门口将变成打架的地方，议院之内会打得更激烈。为了了解这一点，几乎没有必要去细查议会泄露出来的那些事情，理解这个问题只要知道它的答案。
L.55
Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues—and only two—that have always endangered the public peace.
有任何必要提供证据证实这种法律的丑恶的变态——它倾向于破坏社会本身——是仇恨和分歧的永久性根源吗？如果这样的证据是必要的，看看合众国。在世界上没有一个国家的法律保持在更恰当的领域：保护每个人的自由和财产。作为这一点的结论，看来在世界上没有一个国家的社会秩序建立在一个更稳固的基础之上。但是即使是合众国，仍然有两个问题——只有两个——常常危及公共和平。
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
奴役和关税是抢劫
L.56
What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.
这两个问题是什么？奴役和关税。这是仅有的两个问题，与合众国一般的共和制精神相背离，法律拥有抢劫者的特征。
L.57
Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.
奴役是通过法律对自由的侵犯。保护性关税是通过法律对财产的侵犯。
L.58
It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime—a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World—should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States—where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs—what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?
这两种合法的罪行是最值得注意的事实——从以往世界继承下来的一种悲哀的遗产——应当是唯一的问题，它能够且可能会导致联邦的崩溃。确实很难想象，在一个社会的中心，还有比这更令人惊骇的事：法律变成了非正义的工具。如果这种事实给合众国带来糟糕的结果——法律的恰当目的仅仅在奴役和关税两种情况中变态——那么在欧洲会有什么样的结果？在那里法律的变态是一种原则和一种系统工程。
Two Kinds of Plunder
两种抢劫
L.59
Mr. de Montalembert [a politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier, has said: "We must make war against socialism." According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin, he meant: "We must make war against plunder."
Montalembert先生（1810—1870，法国政治人物和作家）吸收了包含在Carlier先生著名的宣言中的思想，说道：“我们必须向社会主义宣战。”根据Charles Dupin先生（1784—1873，法国数学家，天主教徒）所提出的社会主义的定义，他的意思是：“我们必须向抢劫宣战。”
L.60
But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.
但是他说的是什么样的抢劫？因为存在两种抢劫：合法和非法的。
L.61
I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling—which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes—can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentlemen. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848—long before the appearance even of socialism itself—France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.
我不认为非法的抢劫，比如偷盗或欺骗——罪法典所定义，预料和惩罚的行为——能够称之为社会主义。它不是这种已被系统化描述的威胁社会基础的抢劫。总之，向这种抢劫宣战不能等待这些先生们的命令。向非法抢劫宣战的战斗自世界诞生便已经开始了。在1848年二月革命发生之前很久一段时期——甚至在社会主义本身出现之前很久一段时期——法国已经为对抗非法抢劫之目的规定了警察，法官，警官，监狱，地牢和绞刑架。法律本身在引导这种战争，并且我的愿望和观点是法律面对抢劫应当永远保持这种态度。
The Law Defends Plunder
法律保护抢劫
L.62
But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.
但是法律并不总是这样做。有时法律保护抢劫并参与其中。这样，那些抢劫的受益人便会将羞耻，危险和踌躇置之一边，而原本他们抢劫的时候是包含这类情感的。有时法律将整个法官，警察，监狱和警官这套机构服务于抢劫者，并将受害者作为罪人来对待——当他自我防御的时候。一句话，这是一种合法抢劫，毫无疑问，这就是Montalembert先生所说的抢劫。
L.63
This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations—and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.
这种合法的抢劫可能只是人们立法措施中孤立的污点。如果是这样，最好的方式是以最少的演讲和谴责将这些污点擦去——而无须理会既得利益者的喧闹。
How to Identify Legal Plunder
如何识别合法抢劫
L.64
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
但是如何识别合法抢劫？非常简单。看是否法律将属于某些人的财产拿走，然后给与那些本不属于他们的人。看是否法律以消耗另一个人的方式而使一个人受益，而原本这个人若不行罪便做不到这一点。
L.65
Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.
这样就要毫不迟疑的废除这样的法律，因为不仅法律本身变成了邪恶，而且因它会招致报复而成为了进一步罪恶的肥沃的源头。如果这样的法律——它可能只是一些孤立的事件——没有被立即废除，它就会扩散，繁殖并发育为一个系统。
L.66
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.
从这样的法律中获益的人将会激烈的抱怨，捍卫他既得的利益。他会要求国家应当保护和鼓励他的生产；这样的过程增加了国家的财富，因为被保护的生产能够花费和支付更高的薪水给那些贫穷的工人。
L.67
Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
不要听信这些既得利益的诡辩。接受这些观点将会把抢劫建成一整套系统。实际上，这已经发生了。目前的神经错乱就是企图以消耗每个人的方式来使另外每个人致富；在有序化社会的借口下使抢劫普遍化。
Legal Plunder Has Many Names
合法抢劫有许多名义
L.68
Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.
现在，合法抢劫能够以无数种方式付诸实施。这样我们就有无数种计划来组织它：关税，行业保护制度，福利，补助金，奖励制度，分级税制，公共学校，担保性工作，担保性利润，最低工资，享受救济的权利，劳动的权利，免费信贷，诸如此类的东西。所有这些计划都是在——它们有一个共同的合法抢劫的目标——建立社会主义。
L.69
Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation. This will be no light task.
现在，既然在这种定义之下，社会主义是一套学说，该如何以不同于学说之战的方式向它发起进攻？如果你们发现这种社会主义学说是错误的，荒谬的和邪恶的，那么反驳它。并且它越错误，越荒谬和越邪恶，反驳它反而会越容易。最为重要的，如果你们希望反驳有力，那么就对那些可能潜入你们立法中的社会主义防微杜渐，连根拔除。这不是一项简单容易的任务。
Socialism Is Legal Plunder
社会主义是合法抢劫
L.70
Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said: "The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice."
Montalembert先生已经被指控为想使用粗暴的强制力对社会主义作战。他应该免于这项指控，因为他已经清楚的说道：“我们必须对社会主义的战斗应当与法律，荣誉和正义相一致。”
L.71
But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.
但是为什么Montalembert先生没有看到他已经将自己置于一个邪恶的圈套之中？你想使用法律去对抗社会主义？但是社会主义依靠的就是法律。社会主义者期望去实行合法的抢劫，而不是非法的抢劫。社会主义者，像所有其他的垄断控制者一样，期望把法律变成他们自己的武器。而且一旦法律被掌握在社会主义一边，法律怎么会用来反对社会主义？因为当抢劫被法律唆使的时候，抢劫便不再恐惧你们的法庭，你们的警官和你们的监狱。相反，抢劫可以呼请法律来帮助它。
L.72
To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws? You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical—in fact, absurd—to assume otherwise.
为了阻止这一点，你们会将社会主义从立法中排除出去吗？你们会阻止社会主义者进入议院吗？我的预言：只要合法抢劫继续成为立法机构的主要事务，你们就不会成功。寻求别的方式是不合逻辑的——事实上是荒谬的。
The Choice Before Us
我们面临的选择
L.73
This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:
1. The few plunder the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody.
合法抢劫的问题必须一次性和永久性的解决，解决它的途径只有三条：
1.少数人抢劫多数人。
2.每个人抢劫每个人。
3.无人抢劫任何人。
L.74
We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder. The law can follow only one of these three.
我们必须在少量抢劫，普遍抢劫和没有抢劫中选择。法律只能选择其中一个。
L.75
Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.
少量合法抢劫：当投票权被限制的时候，这种系统将取得胜利。一个人会转向这种系统以阻止社会主义的侵犯。
L.76
Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this system since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.
普遍合法抢劫：自从公民权（franchise）的观念变得普遍之后我们便受到这种系统的威胁。最近给与公民权的多数决定在与合法抢劫同样的原则之上系统阐述法律，这种合法抢劫已经被他们的祖先在限制投票中使用过。
L.77
No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall proclaim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).*2
无合法抢劫：这是正义，和平，秩序，稳定，协调和符合逻辑的原则。直到我死的那一天，我都会以我所有的肺的力量宣告这个原则。（1850年巴斯夏死于肺结核）
The Proper Function of the Law
法律的恰当功能
L.78
And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relationships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.
而且，完全诚实的来讲，如果法律不含抢劫，还能对它有更多的要求吗？法律能够——它必然的要求使用强制力——理性的被用于保护每个人的权利之外吗？我反对任何人认为法律可以不变态的超越这个目标之外的观点，必然的，它将转向侵犯权利。这是所能想象的最具毁灭性和不符逻辑的社会变态。必须承认真正的解决方案——在迄今的社会关系中寻找——包含于这些简单的词句当中：法律是组织的正义（Law is organized justice）。
L.79
Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law—that is, by force—this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization—justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?
现在可以这样说了：当正义被法律组织的时候——即通过强制力——这是将使用法律（强制力）去组织任何人类行为的观念排除在外的，无论这些行为是劳动，慈善，农艺，贸易，工业，教育，艺术，还是宗教。用法律来组织这些行为将不可避免的破坏最重要的组织——正义。因为实际上，我们如何想象当强制力被用来侵犯公民的自由的时候而不破坏正义？这样的行为没有违背它恰当的目的？
The Seductive Lure of Socialism
社会主义的诱饵
L.80
Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
在此我遭遇到了我们这个时代最流行（最大众化）的谬论。它认为法律仅仅公正是不够的；法律必须慈善。法律仅仅保证每个公民的自由和无恶意的使用他的能力——物质的，智力的和道德的自我改善——是不够的。相反，要求法律应当直接的在整个国家扩大社会保障，教育和道德。
L.81
This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
这是社会主义的诱饵。我再重复一遍：法律的这两种用途是彼此直接否定的。我们必须在它们中间选择一个。一个公民不能同时拥有自由和奴役。
Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
强制的友爱毁灭自由
L.82
Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot .
拉马丁（Lamartine ，1790—1869）先生曾经这样写信给我：“你的学说只是我的计划的一半。你已经止于自由；我继续走向友爱。”我这样回答他：“你计划的后一半将毁灭前者。”
实际上，我是分不清友爱和自愿两个词的区别的。我不能理解友爱如何能够合法的强制实行，而自由又不会合法的遭到破坏；并且这样正义必然的被合法的踩在脚下。
L.83
Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
合法抢劫有两个根源：其中一个，如我前面已经说明的，存在于人类的贪婪中；另外一个便是错误的慈善。
L.84
At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.*3
在这一点上，我想我应当用“抢劫”这个词才能恰当的解释我的意思。
Plunder Violates Ownership
抢劫侵犯所有权
L.85
I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance—as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.
我并不是如通常所做的那样，在任何模糊，不确定，大约或比喻的意义上使用这个词的。我是在它科学的（精确的）意义上使用它——在与财产（薪水，土地，货币，或任何东西）相对的明确表达观念上。当一定比例的财产被从拥有它的人那里转移——未经他的同意且没有补偿，无论是通过强制还是欺骗——到本不拥有它的人那里，那么我说这些财产遭到了侵犯；抢劫的行为得到了实施。
L.86
I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress, always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.
我想说这种行为本来正是期待法律来制止的，任何时候和任何地方。当法律本身去实施那些原本期待它去制止的那些行为时，我想说抢劫仍然会存在，此外从社会和福利的观点中，这种对权利的侵犯将更加糟糕。在合法抢劫的事件中，获益的人不再为抢劫行为承担责任。这种合法抢劫的责任依赖于法律，立法者和社会本身。这里蕴含着政治性危险。
L.87
It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time—especially now—wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.
遗憾的是抢劫这个词是攻击性的。我已经尽力想找到一个非攻击性的词语，但是徒劳，因为我不想任何时候——尤其是现在——对于我们的争论再添加一个刺激人的词。这样，无论相不相信我，我都要声明我并不是想攻击任何人的意图或道德。而是，我攻击我所相信必定错误的观念；一个在我看来不公正的系统；一种非正义是如此的独立于个人的意图以至于我们每个人都不希望以这样的方式从中获利，并遭受来自它的痛苦而不知痛苦的原因。
Three Systems of Plunder
三种抢劫系统
L.88
The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned. Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protectionism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries.*4 Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.
在此并不是要质疑那些主张贸易保护主义（所有“主义”均可译成“学说”），社会主义，共产主义的人的真诚。任何一个这样做的写作者必定会受一种政治性的鼓舞或恐怖的影响。然而必须指出，贸易保护主义，社会主义和共产主义基本上是同一种植物的三种不同的生长阶段。区别仅仅在于：在共产主义中合法抢劫更加明显，因为它是完全的抢劫；而在贸易保护主义中，抢劫仅限于一些特别的群体和工业。这样随之而来的，就这三种系统而言，社会主义是最模糊的，最难以决定的，从而也是最真诚的发展阶段。
L.89
But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.
但是人们的意图真诚与否，并不是我们的问题。实际上，我已经指出，合法抢劫部分的也是基于慈善，即使它是错误的慈善。
L.90
With this explanation, let us examine the value—the origin and the tendency—of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.
这样解释之后，让我们审查一下这种要求通过普遍性的抢劫达成普遍性的福利的流行性渴望的价值——它的来源和倾向。
Law Is Force
法律是强制力
L.91
Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.
既然法律组织正义，社会主义者问为何法律却不应当组织劳动，教育和宗教。
L.92
Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.
为什么法律不应当用于这些目的？因为它无法做到在组织劳动，教育和宗教的时候却不破坏正义。我们必须记住法律是强制力，因而法律的恰当功能不能超越强制力的恰当功能。
L.93
When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.
当法律和强制力将一个人限制在正义的边界之内，除了否定它们并没有强加什么。它们仅仅强制他不要去伤害他人。它们并没有侵犯他的人身，他的自由，也没有侵犯他的财产。它们保护所有这些东西。它们是防御性的；它们平等的捍卫所有人的权利。
Law Is a Negative Concept
法律是一种否定性概念
L.94
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
由法律和合法防御所履行的使命的无害性是显而易见的；其有用性是明显的；并且其合法性是无需争论的。
L.95
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
就如我的一个朋友曾经评论的，法律的否定性概念是如此的真实，以至于“法律的目的是导致正义来统治”这样的陈述都不再是严格精确的陈述了。应当表述为“法律的目的是阻止非正义的统治”。实际上，本身存在的是非正义而不是正义。当非正义不存在的时候正义才能实现。
L.96
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
但是，当法律通过它必要的中介和强制力，将一种劳动的规定，一种教育的方法或宗旨，一种宗教的信条或教义强加在人们身上的时候——法律便不再是否定性的了；它肯定性的对人们施加影响。它将立法者（社会每个成员）的意志替换为他们自己的意志；将立法者的权力来源替换为他们自己的权力来源。当这种情况发生的时候，人们便不再需要事先讨论，比较和计划了；法律为他们做完了这一切。智力变成了人们一种无用的能力；他们不再成为人；他们丧失了他们的人身，他们的自由，他们的财产。（加粗的一句话应该译为:它将立法者（指上帝）的意志替换为他们自己的意志；将立法者的创始替换为他们自己的创始。）
L.97
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
尽力想象一下，通过强制力强迫的劳动规定不是对自由的侵犯；通过强制力强迫的财产转移不是对财产的侵犯。如果你不能让这些冲突获得逻辑上的一致，那么你一定能够得出结论：法律做不到组织劳动和工业的同时又不组织非正义。
The Political Approach
政治途径
L.98
When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.
当一个政治人士从他与世隔绝的办公室向外观察社会时，他会被他所看到不平等的景象所打击，震惊不已。他会对我们如此多的兄弟陷于贫穷悲哀不已，当这种剥夺与奢华和财富放在一起对比时更加令人难过。
L.99
Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?
也许，这个政治人士应当问他自己，这种事态是否不是由古老的征服和抢劫造成而更多的是因为新近的合法抢劫。也许，他应当考虑这个提议：既然所有的人都在寻求好东西和追求完美，仅仅正义的条件是否足够导致进步的最大成就，以及与个体责任相容的最大可能的平等？这难道不是和上帝已经决定的个体责任的概念——为了人类可以在罪恶和美德，惩罚和奖赏中选择——相一致吗？
L.100
But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements—legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?
但是政治人士从来不考虑这一点。他的思想转向组织，联合和安排——合法或表面上的合法。他竭力矫正邪恶，却首先正是通过增加和永久化引起邪恶的那种方式：合法抢劫。我们已经知道正义是一种否定性的概念。这些肯定性的法律行动有一点没有包含抢劫的原则吗？
The Law and Charity
法律和慈善
L.101
You say: "There are persons who have no money," and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons. When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.
你说：“有没有钱的人，”然后你转向法律。但是法律不是装满奶的乳房。法律的奶管不能伸到社会之外去供奶。一个公民或一个阶层进入公共资金，若不是其他公民和其他阶层已经被强制将财富送进去，他们什么都拿不到。如果每个人从公共资金中拿出来的等于他放进去的，确实是法律没有抢劫任何人。但是这个过程并没有为那些没有钱的人做任何事。这没有促成收入的平等。法律成为平等的工具仅仅当它从某些人那里拿走财产然后给与另一些人。当法律这样做的时候，它便是抢劫的工具。
L.102
With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.
用这种观念，来审查一下保护性关税，补助金，担保性利润，担保性工作，救济和福利方案，公共教育，分级税制，免费信贷和公共工程。你会发现它们总是基于合法抢劫和组织化非正义。
The Law and Education
法律和教育
L.103
You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.
你说：“有缺乏教育的人，”然后你转向法律。但是法律本身不是发光的知识的火炬。法律所渗透的社会，这里一些人拥有知识而另一些人没有；一些公民需要学习，而另一些公民有能力教育。在这样的教育事务中，法律只有两种选择：它可以允许这种教学互动自由的运作而不使用强制力，或者通过无偿从一些人那里拿走足够支付由政府指定去教导其他人的财产，在这种事务中强迫人们的意志。但是在第二种情况中，法律因为侵犯了自由和财产而变成了合法抢劫。
The Law and Morals
法律和道德
L.104
You say: "Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion," and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?
你说：“这里有缺乏道德或宗教的人，”然后你转向法律。但是法律是强制力。需要我指出在道德和宗教的事务中使用强制力是多么暴烈和无用的努力吗？
L.105
It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others—and even from themselves—under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law—only justice—the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association. The socialists brand us with the name individualist.
看起来社会主义者，虽然自我得意于他们的这些主张，也不可避免地看到了这种畸形的合法抢劫正是这样的系统和努力所造成的结果。但是这些社会主义者怎么做？他们聪明的将这种合法抢劫他人——甚至抢劫他们自己——隐藏在各种诱人的名义之下：友爱，团结，组织，协会。因为我们诉诸法律的极少——仅仅正义——由此社会主义者便认定我们拒绝友爱，团结，组织和协会。社会主义者给我们贴了一个标签：个人主义。
L.106
But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association. We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.
但是我们向社会主义者保证，我们否定的仅仅是强制性组织而不是自然的组织。我们否定强制我们的协会形式而不是自由的协会。我们否定强制性的友爱而不是真正的友爱。我们否定矫揉虚假的除了免除个人责任一无是处的团结。我们从未否定上帝之下的自然的人类团结。
A Confusion of Terms
措词的混淆
L.107
Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
社会主义，就像那些产生和混淆政府和社会之间的区别的古老的观念一样。作为这样的结果，每次我们反对一件事情由政府去做的时候，社会主义者总是能够得出结论说我们根本反对去做这件事。
L.108
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.
我们不赞成国家教育。然后社会主义者就说我们反对任何教育。我们反对国家宗教。然后社会主义者就说我们根本不想要宗教。我们反对国家强制的平等。然后他们就说我们反对平等。等等，等等。就像社会主义者指控我们不想让人们吃饭一样，因为我们不想国家来供应粮食。
The Influence of Socialist Writers
社会主义作家的影响
L.109
How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain—the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public affairs?
政治人士是如何变得相信这种怪异的观念的呢？他们相信法律能够用来生产它本不包含的东西——财富，科学和宗教，在肯定的意义上建立繁荣。应该归功于我们现代的公共事务方面的作家的影响吗？
L.110
Present-day writers—especially those of the socialist school of thought—base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general—with the exception of the writer himself—form the first group. The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!
目前的作家——尤其是那些社会主义学派思想的作家——将他们各种各样的理论建在这样一个共同的假设上：他们将人类分成两部分。一般的人——作家自己除外——形成第一个群体。作家单独的形成第二个和最重要的一个群体。的确这是有史以来进入人类大脑最怪异和最狂妄的观念。
L.111
In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped—by the will and hand of another person—into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.
实际上，这些公共事务方面的作家从假定人们自身没有识别能力的手段，没有行动的动机开始。他们认为人们是迟钝的物质，被动的粒子，静止的原子，最多对于他们的存在方式而言是某种寻常的植物。他们认为人们易被塑造——通过另一个人的意志和手——成无数种形式，或多或少整齐的，艺术的和完美的。
L.112
Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself—under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder—is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials—persons —into a society.
此外，这些作家在社会管理事务上全都毫不迟疑的想象他自己——在组织者，发现者，立法者或创立者的名义之下——是这种意志和手，是这种普遍性的刺激力，是这种创造力，其高尚的使命是将这些分散的材料——人——铸成一个社会。
L.113
These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.
这些社会主义作家均以园艺师看待他的树的方式来看待人。正如园艺师反复无常的将树枝修成塔状，伞状，立方体，瓶状，扇形和其它形式，社会主义作家正是这样异想天开的将人类塑造成集团，系列，中心，附属中心，蜂窝，劳动团和其它各种形式。正如园艺师需要斧头，弯刀，锯子和大剪刀去修剪树，社会主义作家也需要强制力去塑造人类——他们只能找到法律。为着这个目的，他发明了关税法律，征税法律，救济法律和教育法律。
The Socialists Wish to Play God
社会主义者想要扮演上帝
L.114
Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon. The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.
社会主义者将人们视为能够组成社会联合的原料。这是如此的真实，如果偶然的，这些社会主义者对这些联合的成功有任何疑问，他们就会要求将一小部分人类隔离开来去进行试验。这种将各种学说进行试验的流行观念非常的闻名。一个有名的社会主义领导者一本正经的要求立宪会议交给他一小块地区和这个地区的居民，让他去进行他的试验。
L.115
In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals—the farmer wastes some seeds and land—to try out an idea.
与以下的方式相同，一个发明家在他建造完全尺寸的机器之前他会制造一个模型；化学家会消耗一些化学品——庄园主会消耗一些种子和土地——去试验一种想法。
L.116
But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!
但是到底有什么区别，园艺师和树之间，发明家和他的机器之间，化学家和他的化学品之间，庄园主和他的种子之间。而且完全真诚的，社会主义者认为他和人类之间是同样的区别！
L.117
It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator's genius. This idea—the fruit of classical education—has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.
毫不奇怪，19世纪的作家们将社会视为立法者的奇异才能的人为创造物。这种观念——经典教育的成果——已经占据我们国家所有知识分子和著名作家。对于这些知识分子和作家而言，人和立法者之间的关系看起来与泥土和陶器匠之间的关系相同。
L.118
Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man—and a principle of discernment in man's intellect—they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves. They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.
此外，即使在他们同意辨别人内心的行为原则和人智力上的识别能力原则的不同，他们也将这些上帝赐予的礼物视为毁灭性的礼物。他们认为人们在这两种礼物的驱使下，将会毁灭性的倾向于毁灭他们自己。他们认为如果立法者（虽然此时巴斯夏所说的社会主义者还未完全脱下宗教的外衣，但是他们已经在竭力僭越最高立法者的位置了）任由人们自由的按照他们自己的意愿，他们将会变成无神论而不是有宗教信仰，无知而不是有知识，物品缺乏而不是生产和交换。
The Socialists Despise Mankind
社会主义者蔑视人类
L.119
According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men—governors and legislators—the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.
根据这些作家的观点，确实很幸运的上帝赐给了特定的人——统治者和立法者——恰好相反的趋势，不仅是为他们自己的缘故也是为这个世界上其他人的缘故！当人类倾向于邪恶时，这些立法者渴望善；当人类走向黑暗时，这些立法者向往光明；当人类被拖向罪恶时，这些立法者被引向美德。既然他们已经确定这是事情的真实状态，他们于是要求使用强制力以将他们自己的意愿变成人类种族的意愿。
L.120
Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea—the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.
随便翻开任何一本书，哲学，政治学或历史，你都可能看到在我们国家这种观念是如此的根深蒂固——经典研习的孩子，社会主义的母亲。在所有这些书中，你都可能发现这种观念：人类只是一些惰性的物质，从国家权力那里接受生命，组织，道德和繁荣。更为糟糕的是，有这样的明确表述：人类趋向于退化，这种堕落的过程只能由立法者隐密的手才能阻止。到处俗成的经典思想说：在被动的社会之后有一种隐藏的权力叫“法律或立法者”，它激励，控制，赐利和改善人类。
A Defense of Compulsory Labor
强迫劳动的一种辩护
L.121
Let us first consider a quotation from Bossuet [tutor to the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV]:
One of the things most strongly impressed (by whom?) upon the minds of the Egyptians was patriotism.... No one was permitted to be useless to the state. The law assigned to each one his work, which was handed down from father to son. No one was permitted to have two professions. Nor could a person change from one job to another.... But there was one task to which all were forced to conform: the study of the laws and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the political regulations of the country was not excused under any circumstances. Moreover, each occupation was assigned (by whom?) to a certain district.... Among the good laws, one of the best was that everyone was trained (by whom?) to obey them. As a result of this, Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and nothing was neglected that could make life easy and quiet.
让我们先来考虑一段Bossuet（1627—1704，法国罗马天主教主教和神学家）的引文[在路易十四的宫廷对太子的指导]：
有一种非常强烈的影响（被谁影响？）埃及人思想的事情是爱国主义……不允许任何人对国家无用。法律分派每个人的工作，这种工作从父亲传给儿子。任何人不允许拥有两份职业。也不能从一种工作改为另一种工作……但是所有人都有一项任务被强制服从：研习法律和智慧。对宗教和国家政治规章的无知在任何情境中都不能原谅。此外，每个职位被分派（被谁分派？）在一定的区域……在这些良法当中，最好的法律是每个人被培养（被谁培养？）去遵守它们。作为这样的结果，埃及充满了精彩的发明，所有的事物都会让生命变得轻松和安宁。
L.122
Thus, according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing from themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science—all of these are given to the people by the operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people have to do is to bow to leadership.
这样，根据Bossuet的观点，人们源于自身的什么都没有。爱国主义，繁荣，发明，耕种，科学——所有这些都是由法律和统治者的运作所给与人们的。人们所必须做的一切就是听命于领导者。
A Defense of Paternal Government
父权式政府的一种辩护
L.123
Bossuet carries this idea of the state as the source of all progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against the charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said:
How is that possible? These arts were invented by Trismegistus [who was alleged to have been Chancellor to the Egyptian god Osiris].
Bossuet将这种国家观念作为所有进步的来源，甚至在面对埃及人拒绝摔跤和音乐的指控中，他辩护道：
那怎么可能呢？这些艺术是埃及人的智慧之神[祂被说成是担任埃及人的死神的大法官]所发明的。
L.124
And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all comes from above:
One of the first responsibilities of the prince was to encourage agriculture.... Just as there were offices established for the regulation of armies, just so were there offices for the direction of farm work.... The Persian people were inspired with an overwhelming respect for royal authority.
在波斯人中，Bossuet又声称所有一切都来自“上面”：
国王有一项首要的责任：鼓励农业……正如为管理军队建立官职一样，也应当为引导土地耕种建立官职……波斯人对王室权柄有一种不可阻挡的尊重。
L.125
And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, they themselves could not have invented the most simple games:
The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been early cultivated by the kings and settlers who had come from Egypt. From these Egyptian rulers, the Greek people had learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse and chariot races.... But the best thing that the Egyptians had taught the Greeks was to become docile, and to permit themselves to be formed by the law for the public good.
再根据Bossuet的观点，希腊人，虽然非常的聪明，也没有个人责任的意识；像狗和马一样，他们自己是不能发明哪怕最简单的竞赛的：
希腊人，自然的聪明和勇敢，来源于早期来自埃及的国王和移民的教化。从这些埃及的统治者那里，希腊人学会了锻炼身体，赛跑，赛马和马车比赛……但是埃及人教给希腊人最好的一件事是变得听话，允许他们自己为着公共利益由法律来塑造。
The Idea of Passive Mankind
被动人类的观念
L.126
It cannot be disputed that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] held that everything came to the people from a source outside themselves. As another example, take Fenelon [archbishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].
无须争论这些经典理论[被近来这些教师，作家，立法者，经济学家和哲学家所发展]被人们从人们之外所继承下来。作为另一个样本，让我们来看看Fenelon[1651—1715，法国天主教大主教，作家，勃艮地Duke的教师]。
（所谓经典，一般的来讲，如果过去的作品对时下有影响，就会被认为是经典的。所以英国美国的经典与法国的经典完全不同）
L.127
He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This, plus the fact that he was nurtured in the classical studies and the admiration of antiquity, naturally caused Fenelon to accept the idea that mankind should be passive; that the misfortunes and the prosperity—vices and virtues—of people are caused by the external influence exercised upon them by the law and the legislators. Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men—with all their interests, faculties, desires, and possessions under the absolute discretion of the legislator. Whatever the issue may be, persons do not decide it for themselves; the prince decides for them. The prince is depicted as the soul of this shapeless mass of people who form the nation. In the prince resides the thought, the foresight, all progress, and the principle of all organization. Thus all responsibility rests with him.
他是路易十四的权力的见证。这加上他在经典研习中所受的教育和对古老的赞赏的事实，自然的导致Fenelon接受人类应当被动的观念；人们的灾难和繁荣——罪恶和美德——都是由法律和立法者们对他们所施加的外部影响所致。这样，在他的《萨伦塔姆的乌托邦》中，他将人们连同所有他们的兴趣，能力，欲望和财产都置于立法者的绝对引导之下。无论问题是什么，人们不再为他们自己来决定问题了；君主为他们做决定。君主被描述为组成这个国家的人的无形的聚合体的灵魂。君主存在于思想当中，远见当中，所有的进步当中，以及所有组织的原则当中。这样所有的责任都依赖于他。
L.128
The whole of the tenth book of Fenelon's Telemachus proves this. I refer the reader to it, and content myself with quoting at random from this celebrated work to which, in every other respect, I am the first to pay homage.
Fenelon的《特勒马科斯》（希腊神）的整个第十部分证实了这一点。我参考了这本书，随便引用这本广受赞誉的著作都能证实我的结论，对这本书的所有其它方面，首先我是要表达我的敬意的。
Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts
社会主义者不顾理性和事实
L.129
With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists, Fenelon ignores the authority of reason and facts when he attributes the general happiness of the Egyptians, not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of their kings:
We could not turn our eyes to either shore without seeing rich towns and country estates most agreeably located; fields, never fallowed, covered with golden crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and flutes. "Happy," said Mentor, "is the people governed by a wise king...."
Later, Mentor desired that I observe the contentment and abundance which covered all Egypt, where twenty-two thousand cities could be counted. He admired the good police regulations in the cities; the justice rendered in favor of the poor against the rich; the sound education of the children in obedience, labor, sobriety, and the love of the arts and letters; the exactness with which all religious ceremonies were performed; the unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness to men, and the fear of the gods which every father taught his children. He never stopped admiring the prosperity of the country. "Happy," said he, "is the people ruled by a wise king in such a manner."
带着这种典型经典学者的令人吃惊的轻信，当Fenelon将埃及人的一般的幸福不是归于他们自己的智慧而是归于他们国王的智慧的时候，他不顾理性和事实的权柄：
我们找不到比这些更富足的城镇和国家的海岸了；田野，从不荒废，每年都覆盖着金色的庄稼；牧场布满了羊群；工人被土地慷慨给与它的耕种者的果实压弯了腰；牧羊人的口哨和长笛的温柔旋律在旷野回荡。门特（希腊神）说：“由智慧的国王统治是一种幸福……”
后来，门特想让我看看遍布全埃及的满足感和财产的富足，这里总计有22，000个城市。祂盛赞城市中的良警的管理；正义帮助穷人对抗富人；对孩子们进行理直气壮的服从，劳动，节制和对艺术和文学爱好的教育；所有宗教仪式都得到恰到好处的执行；无私，对荣誉的高度重视，彼此忠诚，以及每个父亲教导他的孩子对众神的敬畏。祂不断的称赞这个国家的繁荣。祂说：“由智慧的国王以这样的方式统治是一种幸福。”
Socialists Want to Regiment People
社会主义者想要管制人们
L.130
Fenelon's idyl on Crete is even more alluring. Mentor is made to say:
All that you see in this wonderful island results from the laws of Minos. The education which he ordained for the children makes their bodies strong and robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms the children to a life of frugality and labor, because one assumes that all pleasures of the senses weaken both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure except that of becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring glory.... Here one punishes three vices that go unpunished among other people: ingratitude, hypocrisy, and greed. There is no need to punish persons for pomp and dissipation, for they are unknown in Crete.... No costly furniture, no magnificent clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are permitted.
Fenelon的克里特（地中海岛屿）的乡村诗歌（idyl）更加诱人。他让门特说：
在这个奇妙的岛上，你所能看到的都是源于米诺斯（希腊神）的法律的结果。祂为孩子们规定的教育使他们的身体强壮精力充沛。从孩子最初的教育开始，教师便让孩子们习惯于一种节俭和勤劳的生活，因为教师认为所有快乐的感觉都将使身体和思想变得虚弱。这样，教师除了通过给与他们内心的美德观念而变得不可战胜并去获取荣誉之外，没有任何快乐……在这里教师会惩罚三种在其他的种族中不会惩罚的罪恶：忘恩负义，伪善和贪婪。而对于摆阔气和挥霍则无须惩罚，因为克里特人不知道什么叫摆阔气和挥霍……他们禁止昂贵的家具，华丽的服饰，美味的宴会，镶金的宫殿。
L.131
Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to manipulate—doubtless with the best of intentions—the people of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wisdom of these ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of Salentum.
门特也预备祂的门徒这样的去塑造和操纵——毫无疑问的以最好的意图——伊斯卡岛上的人。为了说服祂的门徒相信这些观念的智慧，门特向他讲述了萨伦塔姆的事例。
L.132
It is from this sort of philosophy that we receive our first political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much as an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare and tend the soil.
我们接受的最初的政治观念竟是来自这样一种哲学！我们被教成以这样的方式去对待人们，就如教师在农艺中教导农人如何侍弄土地一样。
A Famous Name and an Evil Idea
一种动听的名义和一种邪恶的观念
L.133
Now listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject:
To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor it. These laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in commerce, should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put every rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep or to gain.
现在来听听伟大的孟德斯鸠在这个问题上的观点：
为了维持商业精神，必须要求所有的法律都支持它。这些法律——正如它们在商业中所造成的机会均等——也应当为每个穷人提供足够的舒适的环境以使他能够像其他人一样的工作。同样的法律，若将富人置于这样一种较差的境况之中，也应当强制他工作以维持和发展。
L.134
Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!
法律应当这样来处理所有的机会！
L.135
Although real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish that an extreme precision in this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that there be established a census to reduce or fix these differences in wealth within a certain limit. After this is done, it remains for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon the rich and granting relief to the poor.
虽然真正的平等是民主制国家的灵魂，然而这非常的难以建立，所以在这种事务中过度的精确并不总是可欲的。只要建立人口普查将这些财产上的差别缩小或固定在一定的范围之内便足够了。这样做了之后，再由特别的法律通过强制缴纳富人的财产和救济穷人消除不平等，从而实现平等。
L.136
Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law, by force.
这里我们找到了通过强制通过法律实现机会平等的另一种观念。
L.137
In Greece, there were two kinds of republics. One, Sparta, was military; the other, Athens, was commercial. In the former, it was desired that the citizens be idle; in the latter, love of labor was encouraged.
在希腊，有两种共和制。一种是斯巴达，军事共和制；另一种是雅典，商业共和制。前者，要求公民无所事事；后者，热爱劳动受到鼓励。
L.138
Note the marvelous genius of these legislators: By debasing all established customs—by mixing the usual concepts of all virtues—they knew in advance that the world would admire their wisdom.
注意这些立法者令人惊奇的杰出才能：贬低所有已建立的习俗——将所有美德的通常概念混合起来——他们事先便知道了这个世界将称赞他们的智慧。
L.139
Lycurgus gave stability to his city of Sparta by combining petty thievery with the soul of justice; by combining the most complete bondage with the most extreme liberty; by combining the most atrocious beliefs with the greatest moderation. He appeared to deprive his city of all its resources, arts, commerce, money, and defenses. In Sparta, ambition went without the hope of material reward. Natural affection found no outlet because a man was neither son, husband, nor father. Even chastity was no longer considered becoming. By this road, Lycurgus led Sparta on to greatness and glory.
莱克格斯（Lycurgus，传说中斯巴达的立法者）以如下的方式来让他的斯巴达城获得稳定：将琐碎的偷盗和正义的精神结合起来；将最完全的奴役和最极端的自由结合起来；将最残暴的信念和最大的温和结合起来。他似乎将他的城市的资源，艺术，商业，货币和防御都剥夺得干干净净。在斯巴达，野心无需物质回报。自然的情感派不上用场，因为男人不是儿子，丈夫，也不是父亲。甚至女人的贞操也不再被认为是一种美好的东西。通过这样的途径，莱克格斯将斯巴达引向伟大和荣耀。
L.140
This boldness which was to be found in the institutions of Greece has been repeated in the midst of the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times. An occasional honest legislator has molded a people in whom integrity appears as natural as courage in the Spartans.
这种可以在希腊制度中找到的肆无忌惮已经在我们现代的堕落和腐烂当中得到了重现。一个偶然的诚实的立法者塑造了一群人，在这群人中，完美看起来就像斯巴达人的勇气一样自然。
L.141
Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his objectivity—while Lycurgus had war as his objective they resemble each other in that their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their respective peoples into new paths.
威廉?佩恩（1644 –1718，英国实业家，哲学家）先生，是一个真正的莱克格斯。即使佩恩先生将和平作为他的目标——而莱克格斯将战争作为他的目标，他们仍然彼此在这些方面相似：他们对自由人的道德声望允许他们战胜人们的偏见，压制人们的激情，然后引导他们各自的人群走上一条新路。
L.142
The country of Paraguay furnishes us with another example [of a people who, for their own good, are molded by their legislators].*5
巴拉圭（南美洲中部国家）给我们提供了另一个实例[一群人为了他们自己的利益，由他们的立法者来塑造]
L.143
Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society; it will, however, always be a noble ideal to govern men in a manner that will make them happier.
现在，这是真实的：如果一个人认为纯粹发号施令的快感是人生最大的乐趣，他会对社会策划一种罪行；然而这却是一种统治人们的高尚观念：为了使他们更加幸福。
L.144
Those who desire to establish similar institutions must do as follows: Establish common ownership of property as in the republic of Plato; revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent foreigners from mingling with the people, in order to preserve the customs; let the state, instead of the citizens, establish commerce. The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries; they should satisfy needs instead of desires.
那些渴望建立类似的制度的人必须这样做：建立如柏拉图所说的共和制中的财产共同所有制；按照柏拉图所指示的敬畏众神；阻止外来者与国内人混合以保持习俗；让国家而不是公民去建立贸易。立法者应当提供艺术而不是奢华；他们应当满足生活必需而不是欲望。
A Frightful Idea
一种可怕的观念
L.145
Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: "Montesquieu has said this! So it's magnificent! It's sublime!" As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he considers persons, liberties, property—mankind itself—to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon.
那些庸俗追赶时髦的人可能会大叫：“孟德斯鸠就这样说过！所以这非常好！这非常崇高！”就我来说，我要勇敢的保留我自己的观点。我说：什么！你为这个叫好，你神经错乱啊？这是可怕的！这是糟糕的！从孟德斯鸠的著作中这样胡乱的挑选章句来说明他认为人身，自由和财产——人类自己——仅仅是立法者练习他们的聪明的材料。
The Leader of the Democrats
民主派的领导者
L.146
Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject. This writer on public affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. And although he bases the social structure upon the will of the people, he has, to a greater extent than anyone else, completely accepted the theory of the total inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:
If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is the mechanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the workman who sets it in motion.
现在让我们审查一下卢梭在这个问题上的观点。这个作者在公共事务上主张民主派的最高权力学说。虽然他将社会基本框架建在“人们意志”之上，但是他——远甚于其他的人——完全接受在立法者们出场的情况下人类整体惰性的理论：
如果确实是这样的情况：伟大的君主很罕见，那么，伟大的立法者（指上帝）不是更加罕见吗？君主仅仅是模仿立法者而已。立法者是发明那部机器的机械师；君主仅仅是启动它的工人。
L.147
And what part do persons play in all this? They are merely the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merely considered to be the raw material of which the machine is made?
那么人们在这个过程中担当什么样的角色呢？他们仅仅是被启动的机器。实际上，他们不是仅仅被认为是制造这部机器的原料吗？
L.148
Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects is the same as that between the farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over legislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in these imperious terms:
这样，立法者与君主之间所存在的关系，如同农艺专家和农人之间的关系；君主和他的臣民之间的关系，如同农人和他的土地之间的关系。那么，这位作者在公共事务上究竟将人类置于多高的位置上？卢梭管理那些立法者（本文的legislator有时指上帝，有时指人类立法者，无神论者搅合的目的就是为了让人类立法者去僭越上帝的位置），并以这样傲慢专横的措辞教导他们去行事：
L.149
Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the extremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.
你们想让国家稳定吗？那么就尽可能的拉近贫富之间的距离。对富人和乞讨者都不应当宽容。
L.150
If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small for its inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts, and trade these products for the foods that you need.... On a fertile soil—if you are short of inhabitants—devote all your attention to agriculture, because this multiplies people; banish the arts, because they only serve to depopulate the nation....
如果土壤贫瘠或没有产出，或者国家对居民而言太小，那么就转向工业和艺术，然后将这些产品换成你们需要的食品……在肥沃的土地上——如果你们缺少居民——那么就全身心的投入农业，因为这会繁殖人口；消除艺术，因为它们只会使国家衰落人口减少。
L.151
If you have extensive and accessible coast lines, then cover the sea with merchant ships; you will have a brilliant but short existence. If your seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat fish; they will live more quietly—perhaps better—and, most certainly, they will live more happily.
如果你们拥有广泛和易靠近的海岸线，那么就让海面泊满商船；你们的存在将会灿烂不过短暂。如果你们的海岸仅仅冲刷出难以靠近的悬崖，那么就让人们变得粗野并食鱼；他们会生活得更平静——可能比这更好——非常确定的，他们将生活得更幸福。
L.152
In short, and in addition to the maxims that are common to all, every people has its own particular circumstances. And this fact in itself will cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances.
简而言之，作为通常的格言的补充，每个人群都有它独特的生活环境。这个事实本身会引导立法与环境相适应。
L.153
This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly—and, more recently, the Arabs—had religion as their principle objective. The objective of the Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre, commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome, virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by what art the legislator should direct his institutions toward each of these objectives .... But suppose that the legislator mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a principle different from that indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that the selected principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty; sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; sometimes peace, and sometimes conquest? This confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the constitution. The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.
这就是为什么以前的希伯来人——以及稍近的阿拉伯人——将宗教作为他们的原则目标的原因。雅典人的目标是文学；卡西基（Carthage，今天的突尼斯境内）和泰尔（Tyre，今天黎巴嫩境内的港口）的目标是商业；罗茨（Rhodes，希腊东南一岛）的目标是海战事务；斯巴达的目标是战争；罗马的目标是美德。《法的精神》的作者已经说明立法者应当通过什么样的艺术来引导他的制度走向各个不同的目标……但是假如，立法者弄错了他恰当的目标，并以与自然事物所指示的原则不同的原则去行事呢？假如，选取的原则有时创建了奴役，有时创建了自由；有时创造了财富，有时创造了人口；有时创造了和平，有时创造了征服呢？这种将目标混淆的做法会逐渐的使法律衰败，使宪法受损。国家会不断的受到煽动，直到毁灭或改变，而不可征服的本性将恢复她的帝国。
L.154
But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need the legislator to gain it in the first place? Why does he not see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an extensive and easily accessible coast, without the interference of a Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who might easily be mistaken.
但是如果本性可以足够不可征服的恢复它的帝国，那么为什么卢梭首先不承认获得本性是不需要立法者的？为什么他没有看到，人们通过遵从他们自己的本能直觉，在没有莱克格斯，梭仑（雅典的立法者）或卢梭——这些人还很容易犯错——的干预下，也会倾向于耕种肥沃的土地，倾向于在广泛和易靠近的海岸上从事商业。
Socialists Want Forced Conformity
社会主义者想要强制的一致
L.155
Be that as it may, Rousseau invests the creators, organizers, directors, legislators, and controllers of society with a terrible responsibility. He is, therefore, most exacting with them:
He who would dare to undertake the political creation of a people ought to believe that he can, in a manner of speaking, transform human nature; transform each individual—who, by himself, is a solitary and perfect whole—into a mere part of a greater whole from which the individual will henceforth receive his life and being. Thus the person who would undertake the political creation of a people should believe in his ability to alter man's constitution; to strengthen it; to substitute for the physical and independent existence received from nature, an existence which is partial and moral.*6 In short, the would-be creator of political man must remove man's own forces and endow him with others that are naturally alien to him.
为了变成那样，卢梭授予社会的创建者，组织者，引导者，立法者和控制者们一项恐怖的职责。所以，他这样严格要求他们：
敢于接受这项人类政治性创建的任务的人应当相信：他能够——在某种意义上说——改变人类的本性；将每个个体——这些个体在他们自己看来是独立和完整的——仅仅变成一个更大的整体的一部分，这些个体从此以后将只能从这个整体中获得生命和存在。这样，接受这项人类政治性创建的任务的人应当自信可以改变人的构造；继而加强这种构造；将他们替换为物质的并成为一种不再依赖于他们从自然中所获得属性的存在，一种不可脱离整体的部分和只有整体道德感的存在。简而言之，这样的政治性动物的创造者必须消除人自身的力量，然后赋予他别的与他自己相陌生的那些属性。
L.156
Poor human nature! What would become of a person's dignity if it were entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?
劣等的人类本性！如果把公共权力交与这些卢梭的追随者们，人的尊严何在？
Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind
立法者渴望塑造人类
L.157
Now let us examine Raynal on this subject of mankind being molded by the legislator:
现在让我们审查一下雷纳尔（Raynal，1711 – 1796，法国作家）在人类由立法者塑造这个问题上的观点！
L.158
The legislator must first consider the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his locality. A population living on maritime shores must have laws designed for navigation.... If it is an inland settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to the nature and fertility of the soil....
立法者首先必须考虑气候，空气和土壤。他所能处置的资源决定了他的责任。他必须首先考虑他的地理位置。海岸的人口应当设计航海法律……如果是内陆定居地，立法者必须根据土壤的性质和肥沃程度制定他的计划……
L.159
It is especially in the distribution of property that the genius of the legislator will be found. As a general rule, when a new colony is established in any country, sufficient land should be given to each man to support his family....
尤其是在分配财产的过程中可以发现立法者的非凡才智。作为一般性的规则，当在任何国家建立一个新的附属领地的时候，应当给与每个人足够的土地来支持他的家庭……
L.160
On an uncultivated island that you are populating with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate along with the development of reason.... But when you resettle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the legislator rests in the policy of permitting the people to retain no injurious opinions and customs which can possibly be cured and corrected. If you desire to prevent these opinions and customs from becoming permanent, you will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children. A prince or a legislator should never establish a colony without first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the youth....
在一个未耕种的岛上，你将孩子们移民过去，你只要让真理的种子随着理性的发展一同萌芽……但是当你将一个国家连同它的过去重新转移到一个新的国家，立法者的技能就依赖于允许人们保留能够被疗治和矫正的无害的观点和习俗的策略。如果你想要让这些观点和习俗不再持续下去，你必须确保移民的下一代由一般公共教育体系来教育。一个君主或一个立法者若首先不安排聪明的人一同前往指导年轻人，他将永远建不了附属领地……
L.161
In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to the careful legislator who desires to purify the customs and manners of the people. If he has virtue and genius, the land and the people at his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan for society. A writer can only vaguely trace the plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.
在一个新的附属领地，对于一个想要将人们的习俗和行为方式纯粹化的细心的立法者而言，有足够的机会可以选择。如果他拥有美德和非凡才智，土地和人的配置将会激发他产生一个社会计划。一个写作者只能模糊的描绘他的计划的发展，因为所有的假设都是不确定的；这种问题有许多形式，复杂因素和具体情形，难以预知和决定细节。
Legislators Told How to Manage Men
立法者告知如何管理人们
L.162
Raynal's instructions to the legislators on how to manage people may be compared to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: "The climate is the first rule for the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. He must first consider his locality. If his soil is clay, he must do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail."
雷纳尔对立法者如何管理人们的教导可以和农艺专家教导他的学生相对照：“对农夫而言，气候是首要的规则。他的资源决定了他的步骤。他必须首先考虑他的地理位置。如果他的土地是粘土，他必须如此如此。如果他的土地是沙，他必须以另一种方式行事。对于一个期望整理和改善他的土地的农夫来说，任何一种工具都可以使用。如果他足够灵巧，肥料的配置将会促使他拟定一个操作的方案。一个专家只能模糊的描绘这种计划的发展，因为所有的假设都是不确定的；这种问题有许多形式，复杂因素和具体情形，难以预知和决定细节。”
L.163
Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves!
Oh，崇高的码字匠！请记得你肆意去处置的粘土，沙和肥料，有时候是人！他们是你的同类！他们是像你一样有智能和自由的人类！如同你一样，他们也被上帝赐予了能力，能够观察，能够计划，能够思考，并能够为他们自己进行判断！
A Temporary Dictatorship
一种临时的独裁权力
L.164
Here is Mably on this subject of the law and the legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:
Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured.... Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.
下面是马布利（Mably，1709—1785，法国哲学家，政治人士）在法律和立法者这个问题上的观点。在此引用的著作开头的段落中，马布利假定法律由于疏忽而失效。他继续这样对读者说：
在这些条件下，很明显：政府的发条是松弛的。把他们重新拧紧，罪恶就可得到疗治……少想一些对错误的惩罚，多想一些你所需要的奖赏。用这种方式你将恢复你的共和国的年轻的活力。因为自由人对此操作的无知，他们失去了他们的自由！但是如果罪恶已经发展到通常的政府操作无法疗治的程度，那么就诉诸短期的特别法庭，授予它相当重要的权力。这些公民的想象力需要予以沉重的打击。
L.165
In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.
以这种方式，马布利弄出了冗长的20卷。
L.166
Under the influence of teaching like this—which stems from classical education—there came a time when everyone wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.
在诸如此类的教导的影响下——它起源于经典教育——便迎来了这样一个时代，每个人都以他自己的方式期待将自己置于人类之上，以安排，组织和管制人类。
Socialists Want Equality of Wealth
社会主义者想要均等财富
L.167
Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legislators and mankind:
接着让我们审查孔迪拉克（Condillac，1715-1780，法国哲学家）在立法者和人类这个问题上的观点！
L.168
My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks.... Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has planted in them.... Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity.... Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become distasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue.
我尊敬的领主，启用莱克格斯或者梭仑这样的人物吧。在您看完这篇论文之前，为美洲或非洲的野人制定法律也许会令您发笑。限定这些游荡人群定居下来；教导他们去照料羊群……竭力开发自然已经植入他们体内的社会意识……强制他们开始去履行人性的职责……使用惩罚去引导他们厌恶肉体的快乐。那么您会看到您的立法的方方面面都将引导这些野人抛弃罪恶并获得美德。
L.169
All people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.
所有的社会共同体都有法律。但是只有少数群体拥有幸福。为什么会这样？因为那些立法者本身几乎总是对于社会的目标无知，社会是通过共同利益的若干家庭的联合。
L.170
Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens.... As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately more precious to every citizen.... When all men are equal in wealth and dignity—and when the laws leave no hope of disturbing this equality—how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?
法律中的不偏不倚（公正）包括两个方面：在公民中建立财富和尊严的平等……法律建立得越平等，相应的对每个公民而言法律就越宝贵……当所有的人都得到了财富和尊严的平等的时候——并且当法律都没有给干扰这种平等留下希望的时候——人们如何能够再被贪婪，野心，挥霍，闲散，懒惰，羡慕，仇恨或嫉妒所煽动呢？
L.171
What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality.
您在斯巴达共和国中所学到的东西将在这个问题上启发您。根据自然和平等的秩序制定法律，没有一个国家比斯巴达做得更好了。
The Error of the Socialist Writers
社会主义写作者的谬误
L.172
Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything—form, face, energy, movement, life—from a great prince or a great legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents everywhere—in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome—the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and of fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be greatest towards the origins of history. The writers quoted above were not in error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but they were in error when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society regains possession of itself.
实际上在17，18世纪，人类种族被视为惰性物质，等待着一个伟大的君主或一个伟大的立法者或一个伟大的具有非凡才智的人物给与任何东西——形体，脸庞，能量，动作，生命，这并不是不可思议的。这两个世纪人们从对古老事物的研习中获得滋养。这些古老事物呈现在每个地方——古埃及，古波斯，古希腊，古罗马 ——少数人根据他们的古怪念头塑造人类，而人们对强制和欺骗的名望又充满了感激的图景。但是这并不证明这种情形是值得期待的。它仅仅证明自从人类和社会有能力获得进步以来，阻碍历史进步的谬误，无知，独裁，奴役和迷信仍然非常强大。以上引用的诸位写作者并非错在他们发现了古代制度是这样的情况，而是错在他们提议将来的人们崇敬和模仿它们。这些无批判力的，孩子气的信奉者，他们将古代世界这一切依人的意志所塑造的社会的宏伟，高贵，道德和幸福视为理所当然。他们没有理解知识随着时间的流逝出现和增长；与知识的增长相对应的，可能回到正确的一边来，社会恢复对自身的拥有。
What Is Liberty?
什么是自由？
L.173
Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties—liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism—including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?
实际上，我们经历的政治奋斗是什么呢？它是所有人本能的获得自由的努力。那么，这种自由——正是它的名义使人们的心跳加快并使世界动荡——到底是什么？它不是所有这些自由——道德的自由，教育的自由，结社的自由，出版的自由，迁徙的自由，劳动的自由，贸易的自由——的结合吗？简而言之，自由不就是每个人自由的充分的使用他的能力，只要他在这样做的时候不伤害到其他人？自由不就是对所有暴政——当然包括合法的暴政——的瓦解吗？最后，自由不就是将法律限制在合理的区域，让它仅仅将个人的权利组织在合法的自我防御的范围内并惩罚非正义？
L.174
It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire—learned from the teachings of antiquity—that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.
必须承认人类种族走向自由将遭遇巨大的阻碍，尤其是在法国。这主要是因为一种毁灭性的渴望——从教导古代文明中习得的——我们的写作者在公共事务上都有这样一种共性：他们渴望将他们自己置于人类之上，依据他们的幻想以安排，组织和管制人类。
Philanthropic Tyranny
慈善的暴政
L.175
While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.
当社会在努力获取自由的时候，这些将他们自己置于头领位置的有名的人士满脑子的却是17，18世纪的思想。他们所能想到的就是让人类服从于他们自己弄出来的社会发明：慈善的暴政。像卢梭一样，他们渴望强制人类温顺的套上公共福利的轭，而所谓的公共福利不过是他们在做梦的时候想出来的东西。
L.176
This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.
这一点在1789年尤其显得真实。旧制度刚被摧毁，他们就迫不及待的要让社会服从于人的安排，而起点仍然是：法律的全能。
L.177
Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:
来听听这段时期的少数几个写作者和政治人士的观点！
L.178
SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.
圣—鞠斯特（1767—1794，法国革命的军事领导者，后与罗伯斯比尔一同被处决）：立法者指挥着未来。是他决定着人类的善。是他决定着人们是啥样。
L.179
ROBESPIERRE: The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.
罗伯斯比尔（1758—1794，法国革命广为人知和最具影响力的人物之一）：政府的功能是引导整个国家物质的和道德的力量走向将要形成的共同体这个目标。
L.180
BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices.... Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.
BILLAUD-VARENNES（1756 – 1819，法国革命恐怖统治时期的工具性人物）：一群将要回归自由的人必须重新塑造。必须使用猛烈的强制力和有力的行动去摧毁旧的偏见，去改变旧的习俗，去矫正颓废的情绪，去限制多余的欲望，以及去摧毁根深蒂固的恶习……公民们，莱克格斯不容改变的严厉创建了斯巴达共和国坚实的基础。梭仑软弱和依赖的性格让雅典陷入了奴役。这类思想包含了整个政府科学。
L.181
LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.
LE PELLETIER（1760 – 1793，法国政治人士，曾竭力提议实行斯巴达式教育，得到罗伯斯比尔的支持并被实施。93年被暗杀）：考虑到人类堕落的程度，使我坚信有必要进行完全的重建，如果我可以这样表达的话，创造一群新人。
The Socialists Want Dictatorship
社会主义想要独裁权力
L.182
Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud-Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.
而且，他们声称人除了作为原料什么都不是。他们不能决定他们自身的发展；他们对此没有这种能力。根据圣—鞠斯特的观点，只有立法者才有能力做这件事情。人们只能成为立法者想要让他们所成为的那样。根据罗伯斯比尔——一个亦步亦趋的模仿卢梭的人——的观点，立法者从规定共同体将要达成的目的开始。这个目标一旦确定，政府便只需引导国家的物质和道德力量趋向那个目的了。同时，国家的居民所保留下来的就是完全被动的去接受。根据Billaud-Varennes（1756 – 1819，法国革命期间的名人）的教导：人们不应当有立法者认可之外的偏见，情感和欲望。他甚至进一步说一个人坚定不移的艰苦朴素是共和国的基础。
L.183
In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: "Resort," he says, "to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow." This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:
The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.
在前述被宣称的罪恶达到通常的政府程序无法矫正的程度的情况中（L164），马布利推荐使用独裁权力来提升美德，他说：“那么就诉诸短期的特别法庭，授予它相当大的权力。这些公民的想象力需要予以沉重的打击。”这种学说没有被他们忘记。让我们来听听罗伯斯比尔：
共和制政府的原则是美德，而建立美德所必需的手段是恐怖。在我们国家我们期望将自私替换成道德，将信用替换成诚实，将习俗替换成原则，将礼仪替换成职责，将时尚的暴政替换成理性的帝国，将对贫困的蔑视替换成对罪恶的蔑视，将傲慢替换成自豪，将虚荣心替换成灵魂的高尚，将对金钱的热衷替换成对荣誉的热衷，将忠实的同伴替换成忠实的人们，将密谋替换成可以得到奖赏的告密，将普遍的个人智力替换成极少数人的非凡才智，将闪光的思想替换成真理，将对幸福的迷恋替换成对快乐的厌倦，将绝大多数人的渺小替换成一个人的伟大，将一个温厚的，琐碎的，劣等的群体替换成一个慷慨的，强大的，幸福的群体；总而言之，我们渴望将一个君主国所有的罪恶和荒谬替换成一个共和国所拥有的一切美德和奇迹。（在这段话的翻译中，我被绕晕了）
Dictatorial Arrogance
独裁者的傲慢
L.184
At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.
在此，罗伯斯比尔将自己置于其余人类之上多高的高度啊！且请注意他说话的傲慢（埃德蒙?伯克对见过一面的卢梭的印象同样如此）。他不能满足于为人类精神的巨大苏醒而祈祷。他也不是期待通过一个良好秩序的政府来获得这样的结果。不，他自己要重造人类，并且通过恐怖的方式。
L.185
This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre's request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.*7
这一大段散发着恶臭和自相矛盾的宣言摘自罗伯斯比尔的一次演讲，当时他的目的是解释“应当引导革命政府的道德原则”。注意罗伯斯比尔要求独裁权力的目的不仅仅是击退外敌入侵或者放倒国内的反对组织。他渴望独裁权力更多的目的是他可以使用恐怖来强制整个国家服从他自己的道德原则。他说这样的法令仅仅是新宪法诞生之前的一种临时性措施。但是实际上，他仅仅渴望使用恐怖来消灭法兰西的自私，信用，习俗，礼仪，时尚，虚荣心，热衷金钱，良好的友谊，密谋，个人智力，自我意识和贫困罢了。等到他，罗伯斯比尔，完成这些奇迹，就像他理直气壮的呼唤的那些美德，他又会再次允许这些临时性措施来统治。
The Indirect Approach to Despotism
通往暴政的间接途径
L.186
Usually, however, these gentlemen—the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs—do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.
然而，通常，这些先生们——这些改革者，立法者，以及公共事务的写作者——并不期望对人类强加直接的暴政。Oh，不，对于这种直接的暴政而言，他们显得非常温和和慈善。他们走的是另一种途径，他们转向使用法律来进行暴政，专制和全能。他们渴望仅仅去制定法律。
L.187
To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fenelon—plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu—but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.
为了说明这种奇异的观念在法国的流行，我不仅需要复制马布利，雷纳尔，卢梭和Fenelon的全部著作——再加上博雪（Bossuet ，1627 – 1704，法国主教和神学家）和孟德斯鸠长长的纪录——而且还包括议会的全部会议纪录。我不会做这样的事情；我仅仅建议读者去参考这些东西。
Napoleon Wanted Passive Mankind
拿破仑想要被动的人类
L.188
It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.
于是毫不奇怪的，这同样的观念对拿破仑（1769—1821）充满了巨大的吸引力。他狂热的拥抱它，精力充沛的使用它。像一个化学师一样，拿破仑将整个欧洲都视为他试验的材料。不过在适当的时候，这些材料反作用于他。
L.189
At St. Helena, Napoleon—greatly disillusioned—seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will: "To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness."
在圣—赫丽娜（南大西洋的一个岛屿），拿破仑——幻想完全破灭之后——看起来似乎意识到了人类的主动性。认识到这一点之后，他对自由的敌意减少了。虽然如此，这并没有阻止他这样教导他的儿子：“统治就是增加和传播道德，教育和幸福。”
L.190
After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc's book on the organization of labor: "In our plan, society receives its momentum from power."
现在，几乎没有必要再来引用莫利（Morelly, 1717—？，法国作家），巴贝夫（Babeuf，1760—1797，在1797年被送上断头台），欧文（Owen, 1771—1858），圣西门（Saint-Simon，1760—1825），傅立叶（Fourier ，1768—1830）这些人的观点了。然而，这里有少量路易斯?勃朗（Louis Blanc，1811—1882）关于劳动组织的著作摘录：“在我们的计划中，社会从权势那里接受动力。”
L.191
Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.
现在来考虑一下：这种动力背后的驱动力是由路易斯?勃朗的计划来提供的；他的计划强制对社会实施；这里谈及的社会是人类种族。这样人类种族便是从路易斯?勃朗那里接受动力。
L.192
Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:
In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural workings of the established mechanism.
现在有人会说人们可以自由的接受或拒绝这种计划。不可否认，人们能够自由的接受或拒绝他们所希望的任何人的建议。但是这不是路易斯?勃朗先生所理解的方式。他期望他的计划能够合法化，从而可以通过法律的力量强制驱使人们：
在我们的计划中，国家只须通过劳动法律（没有别的？），依靠这种法律，工业进步能够且必定会完全自由的进行。国家仅仅将社会置于一个斜面上（这是全部？）。然后社会便能依靠事物自身的力量，依靠已经建立的机器的自然运作沿斜面一直滑下去。
L.193
But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine—in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)
但是路易斯?勃朗所指出的这种斜面是什么呢？它没有通往地狱吗？（不，它通往幸福。）如果真是这样的，那么为什么不是由社会自己的选择而走向哪里？（因为社会并不知道它到底想要什么；它必须被驱使。）用什么来驱使社会？（权势。）谁来提供这种权势的驱动力？（来由，这台机器的发明者——在此例子中，是路易斯?勃朗先生。）
The Vicious Circle of Socialism
社会主义的邪恶圈套
L.194
We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.
我们将永远逃不脱这个圈套：被动人类的观念，以及法律的强制力被一个伟人用来驱使每个人。
L.195
Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?
一旦社会被置于这样的斜面上，它还能享有某种自由吗？（当然。）那么什么是自由，路易斯?勃朗先生？
L.196
Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.
无可质疑的，自由不仅是一种赐予的权利；而且是一种赐予的权力，在正义的统治和法律的保护之下，个人可以使用和发展他的能力。
L.197
And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?
这并不是毫无意义的区分；它的意义是深刻的，它的结果是难以估量的。因为一旦赞同一个人，要获得真正的自由，必须有权力去使用和发展他的能力，那么，必然的每个人都可以向社会要求这样的教育以允许他去发展自己。而且，每个人都可以向社会要求生产工具，若没有生产工具人类的主动性就得不到充分的发挥。现在，社会通过什么样的作用可以给与每个人必要的教育和必要的生产工具，如果除去政府的作用的话？
L.198
Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?
所以，再者，自由是一种权力（自由首先是一种权利）。这种权力包括什么呢？（包括接受教育和得到生产工具。）谁将给与教育和生产工具？（社会，它应当将这二者给与每个人。）社会通过什么样的作用将生产工具给与那些原本并不拥有它们的人？（来由，通过政府的作用。）而政府会从谁那里拿走这些东西呢？
L.199
Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.
这个问题让读者来回答。同时提醒读者注意这将引导我们通向哪里。
The Doctrine of the Democrats
民主派的学说
L.200
The strange phenomenon of our times—one which will probably astound our descendants—is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.
我们这个时代的奇怪现象——可能会让我们的后代吃惊不已——就是基于以下三个假设的学说：人类整体的惰性，法律的全能，以及立法者的完全正确。这三种观念形成了那些声称自己完全的民主的人的某种神圣的符号。
L.201
The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.
这种学说的鼓吹者也宣称是“社会的”。至于他们所说的“民主”，他们对人类给与了无限的信心。但是当他们说到“社会”的时候，他们又将人类视为比泥巴好不了多少的东西。让我进一步审查这种巨大的反差。
L.202
What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.
当讨论政治权利的时候，民主主义者的看法是什么？当要选择立法者的时候，他是如何来看待“人”的？Ah，他们声称人有一种直觉的智慧；这些人被赐予了最完美的领悟力；他们的意志总是对的；将军不可能犯错；票选权不能太普遍。
L.203
When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.
当投票的时候，显然的，投票者并不需要做任何明智的保证。他明智选择的意志和能力被视为理所当然的前提。人们不会犯错吗？我们不是生活在启蒙时代吗？什么！人们一直要用牵狗的绳子拴着吗？通过这么巨大的努力和牺牲他们还不能赢得他们的权利？他们还没有给与足够的理解力和智慧的证明？他们不是成年人？他们没有能力进行自我判断？他们不知道什么对他们最好？有没有这样一个阶层或一个人，他是如此的耀眼，可以将他自己置于人类之上，为他们审判和立法？不，不，人们是且应当是自由的。他们想要管理他们自己的事务，并且他们应当这样做。
L.204
But when the legislator is finally elected—ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.
但是，当立法者最终选出来的时候——ah!事实上他说话的语调会发生根本性的改变。人们将回到被动，惰性和无意识的状态；立法者进入全能状态。于是他所要做的便是去创造，去引导，去驱使，去组织。人类所要做的仅仅是服从；独裁的时刻便开始了。我们现在来看看这种毁灭性的观念：在选举的时候，人们是那么的聪明，那么的道德，那么的完美，而现在，他们没有任何的倾向了；如果有的话，他们只有堕落的倾向。
The Socialist Concept of Liberty
社会主义者的自由概念
L.205
But ought not the people be given a little liberty?
但是人们不应当给与一点点自由吗？
L.206
But Mr. Considerant has assured us that liberty leads inevitably to monopoly!
但是孔西德朗（Considerant，1808—1893，法国社会主义者，傅立叶的信徒）先生使我们确信：自由必然的会走向垄断！
L.207
We understand that liberty means competition. But according to Mr. Louis Blanc, competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people. It is for this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States.)
我们的理解：自由意味着竞争。但是根据路易斯?勃朗先生的观点，竞争是一种毁灭商人和消灭人们的体系。正是这个原因自由人将会依他们的自由程度而导致毁灭的程度。（或许，路易斯?勃朗先生应当观察一下竞争的结果，比如，瑞士，荷兰，英国和合众国。）
L.208
Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads to monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us that low prices lead to high prices; that competition drives production to destructive activity; that competition drains away the sources of purchasing power; that competition forces an increase in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption. From this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness among the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely must attend to it.
路易斯?勃朗先生也告诉我们竞争会走向垄断。由于同样的原因，他这样告知我们：低价会走向高价；竞争推动生产产生破坏性的行为；竞争耗尽购买力的来源；竞争迫使生产增加的同时，它也迫使消费降低。由于这些原因，所以自由人将会制造出无消费；自由意味着人们之中的压迫和疯狂；于是路易斯?勃朗先生绝对必须好好来看管它。
Socialists Fear All Liberties
社会主义者恐惧所有的自由
L.209
Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have?
Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)
好了，这些立法者允许人们拥有什么样的自由？
道德心的自由？（但是如果允许这样，我们将看到人们会利用这样的机会成为无神论者。）（中国与巴斯夏所讲的法国的不同之处仅仅在于：中国没有宗教这件外衣。[译注]）
L.210
Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr. Thiers, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despotism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)
教育的自由呢？（但是父母们将支付给教师们报酬，让他们来教导自己的孩子养成不道德和撒谎的习性；此外，根据梯也尔（Thiers，1797—1877，法国政治人物和历史学家）先生的观点，如果教育都留给国家自由处置，它将止于国家的教育，而我们教给我们孩子的就只能是土耳其人或印度人的观念；然而，感谢这种合法的独裁教育，我们的孩子现在幸运的被教给罗马人的高贵观念。）
L.211
Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)
劳动的自由呢？（但是那意味着竞争，竞争会依次的，将未耗尽的生产弃之一边，毁灭商人，消灭人们。）
L.212
Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows—and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again—that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)
可能的贸易自由呢？（但是每个人都知道——保护性关税的拥护者已经一遍又一遍的证明——贸易自由会毁灭每个参与其中的人，所以为了繁荣必须制止贸易自由。）（关税，在一般的意义上，是指产品从一地输送到另一地的过程中政府强制收取的那部分，并不仅仅指国际间的流通。[译注]）
L.213
Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)
还有结社的自由呢？（但是，根据社会主义者的学说，真正的自由和自愿性的结社是彼此冲突的，社会主义者的意图是精确的制止结社的自由以强制人们真正自由的结合在一起。）
L.214
Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.
那么很明显，社会民主派的道德心不能允许人们拥有任何的自由，因为他们相信人类的本性总是趋向于某种堕落和灾难。于是当然的，这些立法者必须为人们制订计划以把他们从堕落的状态中拯救出来。
L.215
This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?
这样的论证思路给我们带来一个富有挑战性的问题：如果人们如那些政治人物所指出的那样无能力，无道德且无知，那么，对于同样的这一群人，为什么要如此激烈的坚决主张在他们投票的时候他们是万无一失的？
The Superman Idea
超人的观念
L.216
The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.
这些组织者对人性的主张引出了我经常质疑他们的另一个问题，就我所知，他们从未回答：如果人类的自然倾向如此糟糕以致允许他们自由的话是不安全的，那么为何这些组织者的倾向总是好的？这些立法者和他们指定的代理人难道不属于人类种族吗？或者他们相信他们自己是用比其余的人类更好的泥土做成的？这些组织者维持运转的那个社会，一旦不再引导，将会一头撞进不可避免的毁灭之中，因为人们的本能非常的错误而且顽固。那些立法者声称将阻止这种自杀的过程并给与它一种理智的引导。那么显然的，这些立法者和组织者被上帝赐予了一种超越整个人类之上理智和美德；如果是这样，请他们出示他们这种优越性的资格证明吧。
L.217
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.
他们将成为我们的牧羊人，我们是他们的羊。这样的安排当然的存在一个假设前提，那就是他们自然的优于其余的人类。所以，我们完全有正当理由要求这些立法者和组织者提供这种自然优越性的证明。
The Socialists Reject Free Choice
社会主义者否定自由选择
L.218
Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law—by force—and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.
请务必理解我的意思，我并非质疑他们有权利去发明社会组合的形式，去宣传它们，去鼓吹它们，甚至在他们自己身上进行试验，只要花费的是他们自己的东西是拿他们自己在冒险。但是我确实质疑他们有权利通过法律——强制力——来对我们实施这些计划，并强迫我们为他们支付税收。
L.219
I do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of thought—the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protectionists—renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant to our consciences.
我并不坚持这些形形色色的社会思想学派——蒲鲁东（Proudhon，1809-1865，法国记者，社会主义者）主义者，卡贝特（Cabet，1788 —1856，法国哲学家，乌托邦社会主义者）主义者，傅立叶主义者，全体主义者（Universitarist），贸易保护主义者——的支持者放弃他们形形色色的观念。我仅仅坚持他们放弃他们所共有的一种观念：他们仅仅需要放弃强迫我们的观念——强迫我们默认他们的集团，他们的社会化方案，他们的不受约束的信用银行，他们的古希腊-罗马的道德概念，以及他们的商业管制。我仅仅要求请允许我们来为我们自己决定这些计划；如果我们发现这些计划违背了我们最佳的利益选择或者与我们的道德心相冲突，我们不是直接或间接的被强迫去接受它们。
L.220
But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?
但是这些组织者都渴望使用税收和法律的强制力以实施他们的计划。在压迫和不公正之外，这种渴望也意味着这种毁灭性的假设：组织者绝无错误，人类没有能力。但是，再说一遍，如果人们没有能力来为他们自己进行判断，那么为什么还要谈论“全民票决”？
The Cause of French Revolutions
法国革命的原因
L.221
This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically, reflected in events in France. For example, Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights—or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the circumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the case.
观念中的这种矛盾，不幸却合乎逻辑的，在法国的事件中反映出来了。举例来说，法国人已经引导所有其他国家的人去获取他们的权利——或者更准确地说，他们的政治要求。然而这个事实却没有阻止我们变成欧洲统治最严厉，管制最严格，强制最深重，负累最沉重，剥削最彻底的国家。而且，法国引导所有其它的国家变成了一个常常期待革命的国家。在这种状况下，非常自然的，法国革命成为了一个榜样。
L.222
And this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue to accept this idea that has been so well expressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: "Society receives its momentum from power." This will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy; so long as they expect everything from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.
这个榜样会保留下去，只要我们的政治人士继续接受路易斯?勃朗先生已经明确表达的这种观念：“社会从权势那里接受动力。” 这个榜样会保留下去，只要有感情的人类继续被视为被动的物种；只要他们认为自己没有能力通过他们自己的智力和他们自己的能力获得更好的繁荣和幸福；只要他们从法律那里期待任何物品；一句话，只要他们把他们同国家的关系视为羊和牧羊人的关系。
The Enormous Power of Government
政府的巨大权力
L.223
As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice—all then depend upon political administration. It is burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.
只要这些观念盛行，很明显，政府责任是巨大的。好运与坏运，财富与贫穷，平等与不平等，美德与罪恶——这一切都依赖于政治管理。它被人们期望负担一切，它信誓旦旦要承担一切，它什么事都干；于是它对一切都负有责任。
L.224
If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear the blame. For are not our persons and property now at the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?
如果我们比较侥幸，那么政府要求得到我们的感激；但如果我们比较倒霉，那么政府必须承受谴责。因为我们的人身和财产现在不是交由政府来处置了吗？法律不是全能的吗？
L.225
In creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?
在建立教育垄断的问题上，政府必须回答每个家庭的父亲的希望，这些父亲在教育的问题上已经被剥夺了自由；如果这些希望破灭，这是谁的错？
L.226
In regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?
在管制工业的问题上，政府已经承诺让工业繁荣；否则剥夺工业本身的自由将是荒谬的。如果工业现在遭到挫折，这是谁的错？
L.227
In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?
在通过关税干预贸易平衡的问题上，即已干预则必须承诺让贸易繁荣；如果干预的结果是破坏而不是繁荣，这是谁的错？
L.228
In giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for their liberty, the government undertakes to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault is it?
在给与海运业保护而剥夺他们的自由的问题上，政府信誓旦旦的承诺让他们盈利；如果他们成为纳税人的负担，这是谁的错？
L.229
Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases the threat of another revolution in France?
这样一来，国家中便没有一种抱怨不是政府自愿来承担责任的了。那么，任何失败都将增加法国另一次革命的威胁性，这很奇怪吗？
L.230
And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility of government.
对于这个问题提出了什么样的矫正办法？毫无限制的扩大法律的统治范围；即，政府的责任。
L.231
But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine, "The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people"—and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure—which, alas! is more than probable—there will be an equally inevitable revolution?
但是如果政府承诺控制并增加工资，却不能做到；如果政府承诺照顾所有贫困的人，却不能做到；如果政府承诺支持所有未被雇用的工人，却不能做到；如果政府承诺向所有借贷者提供无息资金，却不能做到；如果，在出自拉马丁先生的这些话中，“国家认为它的目标是使人们的灵魂得到启蒙，发展，增长，坚强，精神和圣洁”——如果政府不能达到这些目标，那么怎么办？任何政府的失败——alas!这是非常可能的——不是确切无疑的会必然导致革命？
Politics and Economics
政治学和经济学
L.232
[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed in the opening pages of this thesis: the relationship of economics and of politics—political economy.]*8
现在让我们回到我公开出版的论文所简要讨论的主题：经济学和政治学的关系——政治经济学。
L.233
A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic. This must be known before a science of politics can be formulated to determine the proper functions of government.
在政治科学能够合乎逻辑的明确阐释之前，经济科学必须得到明确的阐释。本质上，经济学是一门确定人类的利益能够协调还是只能敌对的科学。必须知道这一点之后，才能明确的阐释政治学所确定的政府的恰当功能。
L.234
Immediately following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?
接下来的问题马上就是经济学的发展，在政治科学得到明确阐释之初，这个非常重要的问题必须得到回答：法律是什么？法律应当是什么样的？它的范围；它的边界？立法者的正当权力在逻辑上应当在哪一点停止下来？
L.235
I do not hesitate to answer: Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice. In short, law is justice.
我会毫不犹豫地回答：法律是组织起来去作为非正义的屏障而行使的公共强制力。一句话，法律是正义。
Proper Legislative Functions
立法机构的恰当功能
L.236
It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.
立法者对我们的人身和财产拥有绝对的权力，这是不对的。人身和财产的存在先于立法者的存在，立法者的功能只能保证它们的安全。（有人认为：私人财产权是由宪法确定的。宪法只是一个国家中最高的人类法律，如果认为宪法可以任意规定财产权的处置，那么必定假设这样一个基本原则，即人们进入社会是为了放弃财产的全部或部分，这是荒谬的。[译注]）
L.237
It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.
法律的功能是控制我们的道德心，我们的观念，我们的意志，我们的教育，我们的观点，我们的工作，我们的交易，我们的才能，我们的快乐，这是不对的。法律的功能是保护这些权利得到自由的运用，并阻止任何人干预他人对这些权利的自由运用。
L.238
Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.
既然法律必须要求强制力的支持，它的合法的统治只能局限于强制力的使用成为必要的地方。这就是正义。
L.239
Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self-defense. It is for this reason that the collective force—which is only the organized combination of the individual forces—may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.
每个个体均有权利去使用强制力来进行合法的自我防御。由于这个原因集合性的强制力——它仅仅是个体强制力的组织化结合——可以合法的用于同样的目的；它不能合法的用于任何其它的目的。
L.240
Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self-defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.
法律仅仅是个体自我防御权利——它在法律制定之前便已存在——的组织形式。法律是正义。
Law and Charity Are Not the Same
法律和慈善不是一回事
L.241
The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property.
法律的使命不是去压迫人和抢劫他们的财产，即使是以慈善的精神来实行法律。它的使命是去保护人身和财产。
L.242
Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.
而且，如果在过程中克制了压迫人和抢劫他们的财产，也不能说法律可以是慈善的；这是矛盾的。法律无法避免对人身和财产产生影响；如果法律以保护人身和财产以外的方式去行使，那么它的行为必然的会侵犯人身自由和他们拥有财产的权利。
L.243
The law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.
法律是正义——简单而清晰，精确而有边界。每双眼睛都能看到，每个头脑都能理解；因为正义是可以衡量的，是永恒的，是不会改变的。正义不会比这一点更多也不会更少。
L.244
If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?
如果你超过了这个恰当的界限——如果你企图将法律变成宗教，变成友爱，变成均分财产，变成慈善，变成产业，变成文学，或变成艺术——你将迷失在一个未知的世界，模糊而不确定，可能是一个强制的乌托邦，甚至更糟糕的是，可能是一个大众化的乌托邦，每个人都竭力去抓住法律来强制你。这是真实的，因为友爱和慈善，和正义不一样，并没有精确的边界。一旦开始，你会在那里停住？法律本身会在哪里停住？
The High Road to Communism
通往共产主义的高速路
L.245
Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the law control the consumers to benefit the producers.
Saint-Cricq先生会仅仅将他的慈善扩大到某些工业集团；他会要求法律控制消费者以帮助生产者。
L.246
Mr. Considerant would sponsor the cause of the labor groups; he would use the law to secure for them a guaranteed minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other necessities of life.
孔西德朗先生会以劳动集团的原因进行倡议；他会使用法律来确保劳工最低穿衣，住房，食物，以及所有其它生活必需品。
L.247
Mr. Louis Blanc would say—and with reason—that these minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of complete fraternity; he would say that the law should give tools of production and free education to all working people.
路易斯?勃朗先生会说——附带理由——这些最低保障仅仅是完全友爱的开始；他会说法律应当给与所有的劳工生产工具和免费教育。
L.248
Another person would observe that this arrangement would still leave room for inequality; he would claim that the law should give to everyone even in the most inaccessible hamlet—luxury, literature, and art.
另一个人会注意到这种安排仍然存在不平等的空间；他会宣称在最难以接近的哈姆雷特这方面，法律应当给与每个人——奢侈，文学和艺术。
L.249
All of these proposals are the high road to communism; legislation will then be—in fact, it already is—the battlefield for the fantasies and greed of everyone.
所有这些提议都是通往共产主义的高速路；立法就会变成——实际上，它已经变成——每个人幻想和贪婪的战场。
The Basis for Stable Government
稳定的政府的基础
L.250
Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was confined only to suppressing injustice.
法律是正义。在这个主张中假设存在一个简单而持久的政府。我不怕冒犯任何人的说，即使是革命的，反叛的，哪怕是最轻微的暴动如何能够起来去反抗一个组织化的强制力仅仅限于制止非正义的政府？
L.251
Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity—and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no one would even think of accusing the government for them. This is true because, if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of changes in the temperature.
在这样的政府形式下，将会有最大的繁荣——并且将会是最平等的分配。就人性必然遭受的痛苦而言，没有人会为此想去控告政府。这是真实的，因为如果政府的强制力只限于制止非正义，那么对这些痛苦而言政府就是无罪（无辜）的，如同气温的改变和它没有关系一样。
L.252
As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.
作为这种陈述的证明，考虑下面这个问题：听说过人们曾经起来反抗上诉法庭吗？或者听说过围堵司法警官（Justice of the Peace：司法警官，宪政下维持和平的基层司法官员，从属执行权力），以获得更高的工资，无息信贷，生产工具，有偏袒性的关税，或政府制造的工作职位吗？每个人都完全清楚的知道这样的事情不在上诉法庭或司法警官的管辖范围。而且如果政府仅限于它的恰当功能，每个人很快就会熟知这些事情不在法律本身的管辖范围。
L.253
But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity—proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social inequalities—then the door is open to an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.
但是基于友爱的原则来制定法律——宣称所有的善，所有的恶，均来源于法律；法律为所有个人的挫折和所有社会中的不平等负责——那么，无休无止的抱怨，恼怒，烦恼和革命的大门便打开了。
Justice Means Equal Rights
正义意味着权利平等
L.254
Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr. Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?
法律是正义。如果法律能够正当的变成别的东西，这确实是不可思议的！正义不是对的吗？权利不是平等的吗？根据什么样的权利法律可以强迫我服从 Mimerel先生，Melun先生，Thiers先生，或路易斯?勃朗先生的社会计划？如果法律拥有这样做的道德权利，那么为什么不可以强迫这些人来服从我的计划呢？逻辑上可以假定自然并没有赐予我足够的想象力也去梦想一种乌托邦吗？法律应当只能在众多幻想中选择一种，并让组织化的政府强制力仅仅为它服务？
L.255
Law is justice. And let it not be said—as it continually is said—that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image. This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.
法律是正义。这并不是说——如同一再的被说成的那样——在这种概念之下，法律将是无神论的，个人主义的和无情的；它将使人类变成法律的形象。这是一个荒谬的结论，只有那些政府崇拜者才会相信法律的形象是人类。
L.256
Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it follow that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?
毫无意义的指控！那些政府崇拜者相信自由人会停止活动？意味着如果我们不从法律这里接受能量，我们便完全不能获得任何动力？意味着如果法律仅限于保护我们能力的自由运用的功能，我们便不能使用我们的能力？设想如果：法律不强迫我们跟从某种形式的宗教，或结社系统，或教育方法，或劳动管制，或贸易管制，或慈善计划；那么必然的我们就会狂热的深陷于无神论，隐居，无知，苦难和贪婪之中？如果我们拥有自由，必然的我们就会不再去辨别权力和上帝的仁慈？然后必然的我们就会停止互相合作，停止互相帮助，停止关爱和救助我们不幸的兄弟，停止探究自然的秘密，停止努力提升自己获得最好的能力？
The Path to Dignity and Progress
尊严和进步的途径
L.257
Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice—under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility—that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve—slowly, no doubt, but certainly—God's design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.
法律是正义。在正义的法律之下——在权利的统治之下；在自由，安全，稳定和责任的影响之下——每个人都将获得他真实的价值和他作为人的真正的尊严。只有在这种正义的法律之下，人类才能实现——缓慢的，但毫无疑问，确定的——上帝所做的有秩序的和平的人性改善的计划。
L.258
It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion—whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government—at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.
在我看来理论上这是对的，因为无论讨论什么问题——不管是宗教的，哲学的，政治的或经济的；也不管是关系到繁荣，道德，平等，权利，正义，进步，责任，合作，财产，劳动，贸易，资本，工资，征税，人口，资金或政府——无论我从科学视野的哪一点开始我的研究，我都会得到这个结论：人类关系问题的解决方案在自由之中才能找到。
Proof of an Idea
一种观念的证明
L.259
And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced displacements; where mankind most nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice.
经验可以证明这一点吗？去看看全世界。哪些国家包含了最和平，最道德和最幸福的人们？那些人们所在的国家，法律最少干预私人事务；政府最少被感觉到；个人拥有最大的视域，以及自由观点的最大影响；行政权力最少最简单；税收最轻最平等，大众的反对意见活跃性最低可争辩性最低；个人和集团最积极的承担他们的责任，因而，不完美的人类的公认道德在持续的进步；贸易，集会，协会受到最小的限制；劳动，资本和人口经受的强制转移最少；人类几乎完美的遵循它自己的自然倾向；人类的发明几乎完美的与上帝的法律协调一致；一句话，最幸福，最道德，最和平的是那些几乎完美的遵循以下原则的人们：虽然人类并不完美，然而，所有希望都依赖于人们在权利约束之内的自由和自愿的行动；法律或曰强制力仅仅用于管理普遍的正义。
The Desire to Rule Over Others
统治他人的欲望
L.260
This must be said: There are too many "great" men in the world—legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.
这一点必须说说：在这个世界上有太多的“伟”人——立法者，组织者，社会改革家，人们的领导者，国父，诸如此类。太多的人将自己置于人类之上；他们将组织人类，庇护人类和统治人类当成了一种职业。
L.261
Now someone will say: "You yourself are doing this very thing."
现在有人会说：“你自己就正在做这种事情。”
L.262
True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.
确实。但是必须承认，我是以一种完全不同的意识来做这件事的；如果我已经加入到改革者的行列，我的目的仅仅是说服他们不要去干涉打扰人们。我不会像 Vancauson（1709 – 1782，法国机械发明家，艺术家）对待他的自动装置一样对待人们。而是，正如生理学家承认人体是它本来的那样，我也承认人们应当是它本来的那样。我想做的仅仅是去研究和赞美。
L.263
My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks—armed with rings, hooks, and cords—surrounded it. One said: "This child will never smell the perfume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils." Another said: "He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders." A third said: "He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes." Another said: "He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs." A fifth said: "He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull."
我对所有其他人的看法可以用一个著名旅行者的故事予以说明：有一天他来到了一群野人中间，正好碰到一个婴儿出生。一群巫师，术士和江湖郎中——带着环，钩和绳索——围住了婴孩。一个说：“这个孩子永远闻不到和平烟斗的香气，除非我张开他的鼻孔。”另一个说：“他将永远不能听到声音，除非我把他的耳垂拉倒肩的位置。”第三个说：“他将永远看不到阳光，除非我倾斜他的双眼。”第四个说：“他将永远不能直立，除非我弯曲他的双腿。”第五个说：“他将永远学不会思考，除非我弄平他的头骨。”
L.264
"Stop," cried the traveler. "What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty."
“停住，”这个旅行者喊道。“上帝所做的已经很好了。不要宣称比祂知道得更多。上帝已经赐予了这个脆弱的受造物各种器官；让它们通过练习，使用，经历和自由来得到强壮的发育。”
Let Us Now Try Liberty
现在让我们开始尝试自由
L.265
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
上帝已经赐予人类对于他们完成其命运所必要的一切。祂提供了一种人的形式，也提供了一种社会形式。并且，这些人类社会器官如此建立以便他们能够在自由的洁净空气中协调的发展自己。那么，江湖郎中和组织者们，请滚开！他们的环，链，钩和钳子，请滚开！他们的人工系统，请滚开！政府管理者的奇思怪想，社会性工程，集中控制，关税，政府性学校，国家宗教，无息信贷，银行垄断，管制措施，限制措施，通过征税实现平等，虚伪的道德说教，请滚开！
L.266
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
现在，这些立法者和社会改革家已经对社会实施了如此多无用的计划，他们从哪里开始，他们最终就可能会在哪里结束：他们可以否定他们所有的计划，然后开始尝试自由；因为自由是承认对上帝的信仰和祂的工作。