讲座笔记
Notes of Justice (a Lecture from Harvard university by professor …)
Section 4’s Conclusion:
Locke is against arbitrary government .He is against the arbitrary taking the singling out of bill Gates to finance the war in Iraq. He is against singling out a particular citizen or group of people to go off and fight. But there is a general law such that the government’s choice, the majority’s action is non-arbitrary. It doesn’t really amount to a violation of people’s basic rights. What does count as a violation is an arbitrary taking, because that would essentially say, not only to Bill Gates, but to everyone ,there is no rule of law, there is no institution of property. Because at the whim of the king, or for that matter of parliament, we can name you or you to give up your property or to give up your life .But so long as there is a non-arbitrary rule of law, then it’s permissible.
Now you may say this amount to a very limited government, and libertarian may complain that Locke is not such a terrific ally after all. The libertarian has two grounds for disappointment in Locke. First that the rights are unalienable and therefore, I don’t really own myself after all. I can’t dispose of my life or my liberty or my property in a way that violates my rights. That’s disappointment number one. Disappointment number two, once there is a legitimate government based on consent, the only limits for Locke are limits on arbitrary or of property , but if the majority decides, if the majority promulgates a generally applicable law and if it votes duly according to fair procedures then there is no violation, whether it’s a system of taxation or a system of conscription. So it’s clear that Locke is worried about the absolute arbitrary power of kings , but it’s also true, and here is the darker side of Locke ,that this great theor ist of consent came up with a theory of private property ,that didn’t require consent that , may and this goes back to the point Rochelle made last time, may have had something to do with locke’s second concern, which was America. You remember, when he talks about the state of nature, he is not talking about an imaginary place. “in the beginning,” he says, all the world was America.” And what was going on in America? The settlers were enclosing the land and engaged in wars with the Native Americans. Locke, who was an administrator of one of the colonies , may have been as interested in providing a justification for private property through enclosure without consent through enclosure and cultivation, as he was with developing a theory of government based on consent that would rein in kings and arbitrary rulers.
The question we’re left with , the fundamental question we still haven’t answered is what then become of consent? What work can it do? What is its moral force? What are the limits of consent? Consent matters not only for government, but also for markets. And beginning next time, we’re going to take up questions of the limits consent in the buying and selling of goods.
洛克是反对专制政府的，他反对专制政府通过硬性规定来要求“比尔盖茨”来资助伊拉克战争，他反对指定某些特定的公民和群体去参战。但是还有一条关于政府选择的合理方式，那就是大多数人的行为.它不代表专制，这不能算作违反人的基本权利。那么为什么说专制者违反了人的权利了呢，因为从本质上说，它不只针对比尔盖茨，更重要的它没有依据基本的准则，没有财产保护的制度。专制的国王或者议会可以随心所欲地让你，你或者你放弃你的财产甚至生命权。但是如果让你放弃权利是有一个非专制的法律可依的，这就是允许的。
现在你就能大概了解有限政府的概念了，而自由主义者们可能会抱怨洛克根本算不上是一个坚定地盟友。自由主义者们主要基于两个方面对洛克产生了失望。
第一，因为个人的权利是不可剥夺的，但我根本没有完全拥有自己。我不能转让我的生命、自由、财产，这是在侵犯我的权利。这是第一点失望的地方。
第二点，关于基于同意而产生的合法政府，洛克说对于有限政府的限制方式是不能让其通过独裁专制的方式来剥夺财产，不管是纳税，还是征兵，但如果是大多数人的决定，有普遍使用的法律为依据，或者是在通过充分表决制定出的公平的程序下做出，这就不算是剥夺个人权利的。所以我们可以清晰地看到洛克担心的是国王绝对的专制权利。
另一方面的实际上洛克也有自己的算盘，这些关于同意和保护私有财产的理论都是同一时期出现的，回到刚才Rochelle 同学提到到，洛克考虑这些理论的第二层原因很可能就是美国。大家都还记得，当洛克在谈到自然状态的时候，并不是在说一个虚构的地方，从一开始，他所说的词句都是带着美国的。
在当时的美国正发生着什么呢？新移民正在不断地圈地，并且在和印第人打仗，洛克作为一个殖民地的官员，非常有可能正在极力寻找正当的理由，来支持将那些通过侵占和开发的土地变成合法的私人财产地行为，他推动的那些基于同意的政府有合法性的理论，恰恰能够对抗国王和独裁者们。
好了，截止现在，我们还有一些基本的问题没有回答，政府怎么得到的民众的同意的，它能做什么，它的道德力量是什么，同意的尺度又是什么，同意的概念不只针对政府，同样适用于市场，在下次课的开始我们就会讨论商品买卖过程中的受限同意的问题。
Section 4’s Conclusion:
Locke is against arbitrary government .He is against the arbitrary taking the singling out of bill Gates to finance the war in Iraq. He is against singling out a particular citizen or group of people to go off and fight. But there is a general law such that the government’s choice, the majority’s action is non-arbitrary. It doesn’t really amount to a violation of people’s basic rights. What does count as a violation is an arbitrary taking, because that would essentially say, not only to Bill Gates, but to everyone ,there is no rule of law, there is no institution of property. Because at the whim of the king, or for that matter of parliament, we can name you or you to give up your property or to give up your life .But so long as there is a non-arbitrary rule of law, then it’s permissible.
Now you may say this amount to a very limited government, and libertarian may complain that Locke is not such a terrific ally after all. The libertarian has two grounds for disappointment in Locke. First that the rights are unalienable and therefore, I don’t really own myself after all. I can’t dispose of my life or my liberty or my property in a way that violates my rights. That’s disappointment number one. Disappointment number two, once there is a legitimate government based on consent, the only limits for Locke are limits on arbitrary or of property , but if the majority decides, if the majority promulgates a generally applicable law and if it votes duly according to fair procedures then there is no violation, whether it’s a system of taxation or a system of conscription. So it’s clear that Locke is worried about the absolute arbitrary power of kings , but it’s also true, and here is the darker side of Locke ,that this great theor ist of consent came up with a theory of private property ,that didn’t require consent that , may and this goes back to the point Rochelle made last time, may have had something to do with locke’s second concern, which was America. You remember, when he talks about the state of nature, he is not talking about an imaginary place. “in the beginning,” he says, all the world was America.” And what was going on in America? The settlers were enclosing the land and engaged in wars with the Native Americans. Locke, who was an administrator of one of the colonies , may have been as interested in providing a justification for private property through enclosure without consent through enclosure and cultivation, as he was with developing a theory of government based on consent that would rein in kings and arbitrary rulers.
The question we’re left with , the fundamental question we still haven’t answered is what then become of consent? What work can it do? What is its moral force? What are the limits of consent? Consent matters not only for government, but also for markets. And beginning next time, we’re going to take up questions of the limits consent in the buying and selling of goods.
洛克是反对专制政府的，他反对专制政府通过硬性规定来要求“比尔盖茨”来资助伊拉克战争，他反对指定某些特定的公民和群体去参战。但是还有一条关于政府选择的合理方式，那就是大多数人的行为.它不代表专制，这不能算作违反人的基本权利。那么为什么说专制者违反了人的权利了呢，因为从本质上说，它不只针对比尔盖茨，更重要的它没有依据基本的准则，没有财产保护的制度。专制的国王或者议会可以随心所欲地让你，你或者你放弃你的财产甚至生命权。但是如果让你放弃权利是有一个非专制的法律可依的，这就是允许的。
现在你就能大概了解有限政府的概念了，而自由主义者们可能会抱怨洛克根本算不上是一个坚定地盟友。自由主义者们主要基于两个方面对洛克产生了失望。
第一，因为个人的权利是不可剥夺的，但我根本没有完全拥有自己。我不能转让我的生命、自由、财产，这是在侵犯我的权利。这是第一点失望的地方。
第二点，关于基于同意而产生的合法政府，洛克说对于有限政府的限制方式是不能让其通过独裁专制的方式来剥夺财产，不管是纳税，还是征兵，但如果是大多数人的决定，有普遍使用的法律为依据，或者是在通过充分表决制定出的公平的程序下做出，这就不算是剥夺个人权利的。所以我们可以清晰地看到洛克担心的是国王绝对的专制权利。
另一方面的实际上洛克也有自己的算盘，这些关于同意和保护私有财产的理论都是同一时期出现的，回到刚才Rochelle 同学提到到，洛克考虑这些理论的第二层原因很可能就是美国。大家都还记得，当洛克在谈到自然状态的时候，并不是在说一个虚构的地方，从一开始，他所说的词句都是带着美国的。
在当时的美国正发生着什么呢？新移民正在不断地圈地，并且在和印第人打仗，洛克作为一个殖民地的官员，非常有可能正在极力寻找正当的理由，来支持将那些通过侵占和开发的土地变成合法的私人财产地行为，他推动的那些基于同意的政府有合法性的理论，恰恰能够对抗国王和独裁者们。
好了，截止现在，我们还有一些基本的问题没有回答，政府怎么得到的民众的同意的，它能做什么，它的道德力量是什么，同意的尺度又是什么，同意的概念不只针对政府，同样适用于市场，在下次课的开始我们就会讨论商品买卖过程中的受限同意的问题。
