[原创] 准备完整翻译洛克的《论世俗政府》第二卷

WIND

1，The Second Treatise of CivilGovernment ：论世俗政府（约翰·洛克著）

2，英文来源：http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/locke/john/l81s/index.html，感谢澳大利亚阿德莱德大学的互联网知识库，以及那些为这些工作付出过辛劳的人们；

WIND

Chapter I.
第一章

§1. It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse,
1. That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended:
2. That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:
3. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:
4. That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the eldest line of Adam's posterity, being so long since utterly lost, that in the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another, the least pretence to be the eldest house, and to have the right of inheritance:
§1.前面的论述已经说明：
1．亚当并不基于祖先身份的自然权利，或者上帝的明确赐予而享有对其后代任何那样的职权，或对世界的统治权，如有人所宣称的那样；
2．如果他享有，他的继承人，也仍然没有权利享有；
3．如果他的继承人享有，但是因为既没有自然法也没有上帝肯定的法律来确定在所有可能出现的情况中究竟谁是正当的继承人，所以继承权即担当统治的权利便不能得到确定；
4。即使这也得到确定，然而究竟谁是亚当后代的长子家族，因为年代久远已无从得知，所以在世界上的种族和家族之中，没有一个能宣称比其他更有资格成为长子家族，因而拥有此继承权；

WIND

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.
我认为所有这些前提既已清楚的表达出来，那么，现在世上的统治者想从亚当的个人统治权和父权——这被认为是所有权力的来源——中得到任何利益或获得哪怕一点点的职权便不可能；因此，任何不能对此给出正当理由的人，即认为世界上的政府只不过是强力和暴力的产物，人们在一起生活仅凭野兽规则——强者掌握规则，从而奠定无穷无尽的混乱和灾难，骚乱，煽动和反叛，（这些事情也是那种学说的追随者所大声反对的）他便有必要在Sir罗伯特•费尔迈(Robert Filmer, 1588–1653)所告诉我们的关于政府的产生，政治权力的来源，以及设计和确知谁拥有这种权力的方式的说法之外找到另外一种说法。

WIND

§2. To this purpose, I think it may not be amiss, to set down what I take to be political power; that the power of a MAGISTRATE over a subject may be distinguished from that of a FATHER over his children, a MASTER over his servant, a HUSBAND over his wife, and a LORD over his slave. All which distinct powers happening sometimes together in the same man, if he be considered under these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers one from wealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley.
§2．为此目的，我想将我所理解的政治权力表达出来也许不会是不恰当的；一个政府的管理者对一个臣民的权力应该同父亲对其孩子的权力，主人对其仆人的权力，丈夫对其妻子的权力，以及奴隶主对其奴隶的权力区别开来。所有这些区别明显的权力有时出现在同一个人身上，如果在这些不同的关系中对他进行考虑的话，也许可以帮助我们分清这些权力。

§3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.
§3. 政治权力，我认为是为了财产的调整和保护而制定法律的权利，可以处死，因而也包括所有较轻的惩罚，以及使用共同体力量来执行这些法律并防御外来侵害的权利；所有这些都只是为了公共利益。

李新苗

支持+膜拜一下~

WIND

5# 李新苗
谢谢新苗兄.膜拜过头了....

WIND

Chapter II.
Of the State of Nature.
第二章 论自然状态

§4. TO understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
§4. 为了正确的理解政治权力，并追溯它的来源，我们必须考虑，所有人自然的处于什么样的状态，对此的回答是：一种以他们自己认为恰当的方式，在自然法的界限之内，完全自由的决定他们行动，处置他们的财产和人身的状态，无需请求或依赖任何其他人的意志。
这也是一种平等的状态，在这种状态中，所有的权力和审判权都是相互对等的，没有人拥有的比他人多；没有比这一点更明显的了，即同种类的被造物，生来便具有相同的自然条件，能够使用同样的能力，便应当彼此平等而没有从属关系，除非他们的创造者和主人，以其意志明确的宣布一人居于另一人之上，并以明显清晰的任命授予他一种确凿无疑的统治主权。

李新苗

回风兄：
过乎哉？不过也！
对英语很烂的我来说，能翻译学术著作就是大师了。

WIND

§5(略)

§6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
§6. 但是虽然这是一种自由状态，却不是一种放肆的状态：虽然那种状态中的人拥有不受控制的自由可以处置其人身或财产，然而却没有自由去毁灭自己，甚至也没有自由去毁灭他拥有的任何生物，除非有一种比单纯保存更高贵的用途要求这样做。这种自然状态有自然法来统治，它约束每个人：而理性，亦即那种法律，教导着所有的人，都必须顾及到——作为完全平等和独立的个人，没有人应当伤害另一人的生命，健康，自由，或财产：因为众人都是作为一个全能者——无限智慧的创造者——的被造物；都是一个统治者的仆人，因祂的命令而来到这个世界，来完成祂的使命；他们都是祂的财产，都为祂所创造，生命持续亦以祂而不是别人的意愿：既然，人类被赋予相似的能力，作为一个自然共同体分享着世界的一切，便不能假设在我们中间存在这样的从属关系，即授权我们彼此毁灭，仿佛我们被造是为了彼此利用，就像低级生物为我们所用一样。每个人，既然必须保存自身，不能任性的自动退出，所以基于类似的理由，当他自身的保护不成问题时，他应当尽其所能去保护其余的人类，而不是去消灭或伤害他人的生命或他人所有有助于保护其生命，自由，健康，肢体或财产的东西，除非是对侵犯者行使正义。

WIND

§7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which keeps the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.
§7. 为了所有人可以得到约束，不侵犯他人的权利，不伤害他人，以及维持和平和保存人类的自然法能够得到遵守，在自然状态中，自然法的执行权被置于每个人的手中，据此每个人均有权利惩罚那种法律的破坏者，以可以阻止其侵犯为度：因为如果自然状态中的人没有权力去执行自然法，自然法便会如同世上所有与人类相关的其他法律一样变得毫无用处，从而得以保护无辜和约束侵犯者。而如果任何自然状态中的人均可因他人的罪恶而惩罚之，则每个人都可以这样做：因为在完全平等的状态中，自然便没有一个居于另一个人之上，任何人所能进行的指控，每个人必须拥有权利去做。

李大苗

洛克的所有思考都是从对《圣经》的考证与解释着手的，所以，准确理解洛克的语言逻辑和思维逻辑，非得娴熟《圣经》不可。即使这样，对国人还是有麻烦，因为，绝大多数中国人对《圣经》的了解非常简陋。

WIND

洛克的所有思考都是从对《圣经》的考证与解释着手的，所以，准确理解洛克的语言逻辑和思维逻辑，非得娴熟《圣经》不可。即使这样，对国人还是有麻烦，因为，绝大多数中国人对《圣经》的了解非常简陋。
李大苗 发表于 2011-6-28 21:39

确实。不过我缺少对基督教文化的体验，暂时只能放弃对上卷的翻译，有时也想本来很有必要翻译上卷的。

WIND

§8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to reattribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the Law of Nature.
§8. 于是，在自然状态中，一个人便是这样得到支配另一个人的权力的；但是当他抓获一个犯罪者时，仍然没有绝对或肆意的权力依其意志的冲动感情或毫无边界的放纵来利用他；而只能依据冷静的理性和道德心的指示，以与其违反法律程度相称的惩罚来对待他，只要能够得到补偿并遏制罪行即可：为什么一个人可以合法的伤害另一个人，而称之为“惩罚”，得到补偿和遏制罪行是仅有的理由。侵犯者违反自然法，便是宣称他自己是按别的规则而不是理性和普遍平等的规则——上帝为人类彼此安全所设定的行为尺度——来生活；保障他们免于伤害和暴行的约束，既已被他蔑视并打破，那么对人类而言他便成了危险。这样对整个人类及人类的和平和安全的侵犯，自然法规定：每个人置于这种情境中，基于他有权利保护人类的一般原则，可以限制甚或在必要时毁灭对他们有害的东西，于是违反自然法并可能对他人施加罪行的人，可能会使其后悔，从而制止他和其他的人——由于他的先例——犯下类似的罪行。在这种情况中，基于这样的理由，每个人均有权利惩罚侵犯者，并担当自然法的执行人。

WIND

§9. I doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to some men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by what right any prince or state can put to death, or punish an alien, for any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the legislative, reach not a stranger: they speak not to him, nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority, by which they are in force over the subjects of that commonwealth, hath no power over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men without authority: and therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another.
§9. 我仅仅怀疑对某些人而言这看起来会是一条陌生的原则：但是在他们谴责之前，我想要他们向我解释清楚：依据何种权利一个君主或国家能够因一个外国人在他们的国家所犯的罪行而对其处死或进行惩罚。毫无疑问，他们经由其立法机构承认的法律，并不能延及一个外人：他们并不针对他而制定法律，即便针对他，他也无须听从。授予立法机构的权力，强制的是此共同体的臣民，没有权力及至一个外国人。英格兰，法兰西或荷兰那些制定法律的最高权力机构，对一个印第安人而言，也只能像对世上其余的人一样，没有强制性：所以，如果依据自然法，每个人均没有权力以他对事件的冷静判断而惩罚违反自然法的行为，我便不知道任何共同体（国家）的管理者何以能够惩罚另一个国家的人；因为，对他而言，他们所拥有的权力并不多于每个人自然可拥有的对他人的权力。

§10. Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation from him that has done it: and any other person, who finds it just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he has suffered.
§10. 此外，一个人破坏法律，偏离理性的正当规则的犯罪行为，因此而堕落，并宣告抛弃人性的原则而成为有害的人，通常会对某些人造成伤害，其他人会由于他的犯罪而遭受损失：在这种情况中，遭受损失的人，除了拥有与他人一样的惩罚权利，也有寻求补偿的特别权利：任何其他的人，如果认为正当，亦可与遭受伤害的人一起，帮助他向侵犯者获得补偿，以满足他所遭受的伤害。

WIND

§11. From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his brother, he cries out, Every one that findeth me, shall slay me; so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.
§11. 从这两种不同的权利——一种是为了遏制罪行并阻止类似的侵犯所进行惩罚的权利，此种惩罚权利每个人都有；另一种是得到补偿的权利，它仅仅属于被伤害的一方——产生了这样的情况，即作为管理者拥有惩罚的公权利（common right），能够常常在公共利益不要求执行法律的情况下，以他的职权（所得到的职务授权）免除对罪行的惩罚，然而却不能免除任何个人因所受损失所应得的补偿。遭受损失的人，拥有以他自己的名义要求的权利，只有他才能免除赔偿：受害人基于自我保护的权利，拥有占用侵犯者的财产或服务的权力，如同每个人基于均享有保护全人类，并为此目的而可以尽其所能做一切合理的事情的权利，拥有惩罚罪行的权力以阻止罪行的再次实施：这样一来，在自然状态中，每个人均有杀死谋杀者的权力，一方面，是为了阻止其他人实施类似的无法补偿的伤害，通过这种惩罚先例引起每个人注意，另一方面，也是为了确保犯罪者不能得逞，他既已放弃理性——上帝已经给与人类的共同规则尺度——以其对他人的不正当的暴行和屠杀，宣告了针对所有人类的战争，因此，可以像对待狮子或老虎一样予以毁灭，与这些野兽在一起，人们无法形成社会也得不到安全保障：基于此便产生了那条伟大的自然法：谁使人流血，人必使他流血。该隐对此深信不疑，即每个人都有权利毁灭这样的犯罪者，在他谋杀了他的兄弟之后，他哭诉道：凡遇见我的必杀我；人类内心的诫律是如此的简单明了。

WIND

布莱克斯通对自然法的理解,与洛克差不多,即自然法与神法的内涵相同.

WIND

§12. By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence, that can be committed in the state of nature, may in the state of nature be also punished equally, and as far forth as it may, in a commonwealth: for though it would be besides my present purpose, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment; yet, it is certain there is such a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of commonwealths; nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.
§12. 基于同样的理性，在自然状态中，一个人也可以惩罚违反自然法较轻的罪行。这也会要求处以死刑吗？我的回答是：每一种罪行可以惩罚到什么程度及有多严格，应当足以使侵犯者觉得这是一桩不利的交易，令其后悔，并使他人欲实施类似的罪行感到害怕。任何一种自然状态中所能发生的侵犯，在自然状态中可以得到相应的惩罚，在一个国家中也是这样：因为虽然在此讨论自然法的细节或其相应的惩罚方式不是我现在的目的；然而肯定有这样的法律，而且，对于一种理性的被造物和此种法律的研究者来说，如同各国的制定法（Positive law：is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which bestow or remove specific privileges upon an individual or group. Contrast this with natural law which are inherent rights, not conferred by act of legislation.//英文维基。我认为这段解释是比较明白的，即这个概念通常是用来描述授予或解除个人或团体特殊权利的人定法律，与之相对的是自然法，是指固有的权利，无须立法法案授予）一样清晰明了；甚至可能还要更明白；这和人的理性比参杂了相反和隐藏的利益的语言所表达的幻想及谋计更容易理解差不多；因为各国的大部分自治法律，只有以自然法为基础，并依自然法进行调整和解释才是正确的。

WIND

法学上有一种学说叫legal positivism,中文译为法律实证主义。这种学说当然也承认法治，但是仅将法律解释为个人或团体所制定的法令。但是在洛克的学说中，法律有两层：除了法律实证主义所讲的法律层次，还有自然法，并且后者是前者的基础。

WIND

§13. To this strange doctrine, viz. That in the state of nature every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it: but I shall desire those who make this objection, to remember, that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from men's being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to be endured; I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or control those who execute his pleasure? And in whatsoever he cloth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to? Much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.
§13. 对于这个陌生的学说，即在自然状态中每个人都拥有自然法的执行权力，我怀疑有人会这样反对：人们在他们自己的事情中担当审判者是不合理的，自爱的情感（self-love）会使人们偏袒他们自己及其朋友：另一方面，不良的人性，激情和报复心理会使他们在惩罚别人的时候走得太远；其结果只会产生混乱和无序，所以上帝才指定政府来限制人们的偏袒和暴行。我当然承认，世俗政府对于自然状态的麻烦是一种恰当的矫正，在人们在自己的事情中充当审判者的地方，这种麻烦一定非常多，容易设想：一个不正当的伤害了兄弟的人，很少会因此而公正的谴责自己：不过我想提醒那些反对者注意：拥有绝对权力的君主们也不过是人；如果政府是为了对人们自行充当审判者所必然产生的那些罪恶进行矫正，自然状态因此而变得不可忍受；那么我想知道，在一个人可以指挥大众，他可以在自己的事情中充当审判者，并且能够肆意对待他的臣民，而对其他任何人而言，对这样肆意行事的人连丝毫的质疑或控制的自由都没有的地方，这又是什么样的政府呢？到底比自然状态好多少？无论他是由于理性，错误或激情所做的事情，都必须服从吗？自然状态中的人比这种情况要好得多，人们无须服从他人不正当的意志：如果他在自己或别人的事情中作了错误的判断，他须对其余的人类负责。

WIND

我喜欢西部片的原因，正是因为在美国的西部，曾经存在自然状态，却曾未有过奴才状态。大多数西部片，即便画面看起来如何的暴力血腥，也不会搅乱看者的是非观念。

WIND

§14. It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were there any men in such a state of nature? To which it may suffice as an answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state. I have named all governors of independent communities, whether they are, or are not, in league with others: for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other promises, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet still be in the state of nature. The promises and bargains for truck, &c. between the two men in the desert island, mentioned by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his history of Peru; or between a Swiss and an Indian, in the woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as men, and not as members of society.
§14. 常有一个重大的反对意见：哪里存在或曾经有过处于这样一种自然状态中的人？此时我想这样回答就足够了：既然世上所有独立政府的君主或统治者都处于自然状态，那么很明显，这世上便不曾缺少也不会缺少处于此种状态中的人。我指的是所有独立共同体的统治者，无论他们是否同另外的共同体结盟：因为并非每个契约都会终止人们之间的自然状态，只有当人们彼此同意进入一个共同体之中的契约才能终止，从而形成一个政治共同体；一人可以同他人订立的其它契约和承诺，但仍然处于自然状态。Garcilasso（1501–1536，西班牙士兵，诗人）在其《秘鲁史》中提到一个荒岛上的两个人之间为交易所做的协商和承诺；或者一个瑞士人同一个印第安人在美洲的丛林中所作的承诺，均可约束他们，虽然他们完全处于自然状态之中：因为诚实和守信是人的品质，作为人而不是作为社会成员。

WIND

§15. To those that say, there were never any men in the state of nature, I will not only quote the authority of the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. I. sect. 10, where he says, The laws which have been hitherto mentioned, i.e. the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do: but forasmuch as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men's uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.
§15. 对于那些认为从未有过处于自然状态的人的人们，我首先要引用明智的胡克（Richard Hooker，1554 –1600，安立甘教派非常有影响力的牧师和神学家）著作，他在（Eccl. Pol. lib. I. sect. 10）中说：到目前为止所提到的法律，即自然法，对人们有绝对的约束力，即使他们仅仅作为自然人而没有任何确定的社会关系，彼此之间也没有什么该做什么不该做的郑重约定：但是，既然我们仅凭自身无法为自己提供一种我们本性期待，与人的尊严相称的生活所必需的足够的物品；因此，为了弥补我们仅凭自身独自生活所具有的缺陷和不完全，我们便自然的想要去寻求与他人的交流与合作：这便是人们最初联合起来形成政治社会的原因。此外，我确认一下：所有的人自然的处于自然状态并维持这种状态，直到经由他们自己的同意而使自己成为某个政治社会的成员；对此我肯定会在后面的论述中进行更清晰的说明。

WIND

Chapter III.
Of the State of War.
第三章 论战争状态

§16. THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man's life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.
§16. 战争状态是一种敌对和破坏的状态：所以，通过言语或行动，不是一时冲动草率而是蓄意预谋宣称可以支配他人的生命，便是将自己置于与他人的战争状态，表明其对他人的这样一种企图，于是，他人或任何加入到支持这一方的人便有权力剥夺其生命；这是合理和正当的，我应当有权利毁灭对我存在破坏危险的因素：因为，依据基本的自然法，既然人应当尽可能的得到保护，那么当不能保护所有的人时，应当首先保护无辜人的安全：一个人可以毁灭对他宣战或存有敌意的人，同样的理由他可以杀死一条狼或一头狮子；因为这样的人并不处于理性的共同法则的约束之下，除了强力和暴行的规则之外没有别的规则，便可如同危险和有害的野兽一样对待，无论何时落入他们的权力之下，毫无疑问的可以毁灭他。

WIND

§17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.
§17. 这样一来，谁企图将他人置于自己的绝对权力之下，便是将他自己置于同他人的战争状态之中；这可以理解为对他人的生命有所图谋的宣告：因为我有理由得出结论：想未经我的同意便将我置于他的权力之下的人，当他得到我之后将会肆意利用我，甚至也可能毁灭我；因为没有人能够将我置于他的绝对权力之下，除非强制我达到这一目的，这是侵犯我的自由权利的，亦即使我沦为奴隶。免于这样的强制是我自我保护的唯一保障；理性促使我将他视为我自我保护的敌人；所以，企图奴役我的人，便因此而将他自己置于同我的战争状态之中。一个自然状态之中的人，欲剥夺另一个自然状态之中的人的自由，有必要假设也有剥夺其余一切的图谋，因为自由是其余一切的基础；如同处于社会之中的人，欲剥夺那个社会或共同体中的人的自由，便有必要假设亦欲图谋他们其余的一切，从而被视为战争状态。

WIND

§18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.
§18. 这使一个人可以合法的杀死偷盗者，这个偷盗者并未丝毫伤害他，也没有对他的生命有任何的企图，而仅仅使用强制把他置于自己的权力之下，以便夺走他的金钱或想要的东西；因为偷盗者在他没有权利使用强制的地方使用强制将我置于他的权力之下，无论他的理由是什么，我没有理由假设：将要剥夺我的自由的人，当他将我置于他的权力之下时，不会夺走其余一切。所以，我可以合法的将他作为已经对我宣战的人对待，即只要可能便可杀死他；因为无论是谁，发动战争，便是战争状态中的挑衅者，便置自身于这种危险的境地。

WIND

在洛克看来，同样是偷盗，对待小偷与强盗的区别是蛮大的。

WIND

§19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another. Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature. But force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho' he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.
§19. 在此我们得到自然状态与战争状态的明显区别，虽然有人混淆，这种区别如同和平状态，善意，互相帮助，保护与敌对状态，恶意，暴行，互相破坏之间的那样大。人们基于理性在一起生活，在这世上没有一个共同的“上级”有权在他们中间施行审判，这便是自然状态。但是对他人人身的强制或图谋强制，在没有一个共同的世间的“上级”可诉求以得到缓解的地方，便处于战争状态：正是“无可诉求”给与了一个人反对挑衅者的战争权利，尽管他处于社会之中并作为其中一员。这样一来，一个偷盗者偷了我所有有价值的东西，我却只能诉诸法律而不能伤害他，但当他攻击我而抢劫的仅仅是我的一匹马或一件衣服，我却可以杀死他；因为为保护我而制定的法律，不能对当前的强制进行干预以保证我的生命安全——我的生命一旦丧失无法补偿——便允许我进行自我防御，战争的权利即是杀死挑衅者的自由，因为挑衅者没有留下时间以让我诉求我们共同的审判者，也没有法律判决可以矫正无可补偿的伤害。缺少共同的审判者便将所有的人置于自然状态之中：不管有没有一个共同的审判者，未经授权而对他人的人身进行强制，便制造了战争状态。

WIND

§20. But when the actual force is over, the state of war ceases between those that are in society, and are equally on both sides subjected to the fair determination of the law; because then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the past injury, and to prevent future harm: but where no such appeal is, as in the state of nature, for want of positive laws, and judges with authority to appeal to, the state of war once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace, and desires reconciliation on such terms as may repair any wrongs he has already done, and secure the innocent for the future; nay, where an appeal to the law, and constituted judges, lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifest perverting of justice, and a barefaced wresting of the laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party of men, there it is hard to imagine any thing but a state of war: for wherever violence is used, and injury done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiassed application of it, to all who are under it; wherever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to remedy them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal to heaven.
§20. 但是当实际的强制终止，则社会中服从公正法律裁决的当事双方的战争状态便停止了；因为对过去伤害进行申诉矫正并阻止将来伤害的路是众所周知的：但是在如同自然状态而无可申诉的地方，因为缺乏制定法及经授权的审判者可申诉，自然状态一旦开始，便持续下去，无辜的一方无论何时都拥有毁灭对方的权利，直到挑衅者提议和平，想要为其在已犯的过错上达成和解，并确保无辜者将来的安全；不仅如此，即使众所周知可以向法律和设立的审判者申诉，然而矫正被“正义明显的变态”所拒绝，法律无耻的扭曲以保护和荫护某些人或党徒的暴行或侵害，很难想象这不是一种自然状态：因为只要使用暴行和发生侵害的地方，尽管出自被指定的管理正义的人之手，依然是暴行和侵害，不过覆上了法律的名义，借口或形式，而本来法律的目的是通过公正的应用于受其统治的所有人以保护和补偿无辜者；在法律未能真实做到这一点的地方，受害者便是被迫宣战的一方，他们无法在这世上进行申诉以矫正伤害，在这样的情况下，他们只有向天国申诉。

WIND

§21. To avoid this state of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the least difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of men's putting themselves into society, and quitting the state of nature: for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the state of war is excluded, and the controversy is decided by that power. Had there been any such court, any superior jurisdiction on earth, to determine the right between Jephtha and the Ammonites, they had never come to a state of war: but we see he was forced to appeal to heaven. The Lord the Judge (says he) be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon, Judg. xi. 27. and then prosecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle: and therefore in such controversies, where the question is put, who shall be judge? It cannot be meant, who shall decide the controversy; every one knows what Jephtha here tells us, that the Lord the Judge shall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. That question then cannot mean, who shall judge, whether another hath put himself in a state of war with me, and whether I may, as Jephtha did, appeal to heaven in it? of that I myself can only be judge in my own conscience, as I will answer it, at the great day, to the supreme judge of all men.
§21. 为避免这种战争状态是人们进入社会和退出自然状态的一个重要原因：因为在存在权力机构的世间，通过向其申诉可以得到救济，战争状态的持续便能得到阻止，争议能够通过这种权力得到裁决。如果当初存在任何这样的法庭，一种世间的上级审判权来裁决耶弗他和亚扪人之间的权利，他们便不会进入战争状态：但是我们看到他不得不诉诸天国。他说：愿审判者耶和华今日在以色列人和亚扪人之间担当审判者（士师记：11：27），然后进行指控并依仗他的申诉，他带领他的军队投入战斗：所以，在这样的争议中，问题提交到哪里，谁来担当审判者？这不是说谁应当来裁决这个争议；每个人都知道耶弗他在此告诉我们的是：审判者耶和华应当审判。在世间没有审判者的地方，申诉仰赖于天国中的上帝。那个问题也不是说谁应当判断：他人是否已经对我宣战，以及我是否可以——如耶弗他所做——向天国申诉？关于这个问题，只有我自己能够根据我自己的道德心担当审判者，因为在审判日，我将向所有人的最高审判者为此做出交待。

WIND

我想在洛克的概念中,有两套法律体系:一套是自然法,上帝是立法者,每个人都拥有担当审判者和执行人的平等权利;一套是制定法,法律的运作划分为三权:立法权力,司法权力和执行权力(行政权力).而前者是后者的基础,后者并不是"统治者的意志",尤其是胡作非为的所谓法律.