Board logo

标题: [原创] 准备完整翻译洛克的《论世俗政府》第二卷 [打印本页]
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-27 16:28     标题: 准备完整翻译洛克的《论世俗政府》第二卷

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；
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-27 16:30

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；
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-27 16:32

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-27 19:53

§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。
作者: 李新苗    时间: 2011-6-27 20:55

支持+膜拜一下~
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-27 22:21

5# 李新苗
谢谢新苗兄.膜拜过头了....
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-27 22:22

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。
作者: 李新苗    时间: 2011-6-28 00:14

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-28 20:16

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-28 21:00

§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。
作者: 李大苗    时间: 2011-6-28 21:39

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-28 21:58

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-29 10:16

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-29 12:55

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-29 17:16

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-29 17:21

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.
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-29 22:26

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-6-30 10:15 编辑

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 10:21

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 13:44

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 13:51

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 15:19

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 16:19

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 21:01

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-6-30 21:10 编辑

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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-6-30 21:46

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-1 10:03

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-1 10:06

在洛克看来，同样是偷盗，对待小偷与强盗的区别是蛮大的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-1 10:56

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-1 16:07

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-1 16:37 编辑

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-1 20:38

§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。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-1 20:48

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.
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-2 10:40

Chapter IV.
Of Slavery.
第四章 论奴役状态

§22. THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.
§22. 人的自然自由就是不受任何世间的上级权力约束，不处于人的意志或立法机构的职权之下，仅仅拥有自然法作为他的行为规则。社会中的人的自由，不是处于任何其它的立法权力之下，而仅仅是共同体内经同意而建立的立法权力；并且不是受任何意志的统治或任何法律的约束，而仅仅是立法机构根据他所得到的信托而制定的法律。所以，自由并非Sir罗伯特•费尔迈所告诉我们的那样：“每个人的自由便是做他想做的事，过他想过的生活，而不受任何法律约束”：但是处于政府之下的人的自由，则是依据恒定的规则生活，社会中的每个人都必须遵守，由其中所建立的立法权力所制定；在没有共同规则所规定的地方，可以在任何事情中都遵从我自己的意愿的自由；无须服从他人易变的，不确定的，未知的，肆意的意志：如同自然自由不受任何其它约束，而仅仅是自然法。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-2 13:57

§23. This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.
§23. 这种免于绝对肆意权力控制的自由，对人的保存是那么的必要和联系紧密，以至于他不能与之分离，除非与剥夺其生命的原因连在一起：因为人，既然对他自己的生命没有权力，便不能通过契约或他自己的同意使自己成为任何其他人的奴隶，也不能将自己置于他人的绝对肆意的权力之下，以便他人可以随意剥夺他的生命。没有人可以给与多于他自己所拥有的权力；不能剥夺他自己的生命的人，便不能给于他人这样一种权力。确实，因为某些可以剥夺其生命的过错，因为某些该死的行为；能够剥夺其生命的人，可以延迟剥夺其生命，利用他来为自己服务，并因此而不能伤害他：因为，无论什么时候只要他发现自己奴役的艰苦超过其生命的价值，他便有权力反抗其主人的意志，情愿以死相拼以抽身出来。

§24. This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life.
I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free, Exod. xxi.
§24. 这是奴役的完全条件，即它只是一个合法的征服者与被俘者之间战争状态的延续：因为，一旦他们之间达成契约，同意一方拥有一种有限的权力，而另一方服从于这一权力，只要契约有效，战争和奴役状态便停止：因为，前面已经说过，没有人能够同意转让一种他没有的对他自己生命的权力。
我承认：我们发现在犹太人中间，其它的国家也一样，人们可以出卖自身；但是，很明了，这只是为了做苦工，而不是奴役：因为，很明显，被卖的人并不处于一种绝对的，肆意的，专横的权力之下：因为任何时候主人都没有权力杀死他，而他，在一段时间之后，主人必须解除他的服务；这样的仆人的主人离对他的生命拥有一种肆意的权力还很远，他不能随意伤残他，只要伤害了他的一只眼睛或一颗牙齿，就使他获得了自由（出埃及记：21） 。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-2 14:04

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-2 14:12 编辑

这两段让我想起桑德尔的公共课程所引的一个案例：几个人在极度饥饿的情况下吃完另一个人之后，成功返回英国。公诉的理由便是，即便被吃的人同意这样做，这也是无效的；所以其他几个人必须为谋杀承担责任。洛克的表达是:任何人都没有剥夺他自己的生命的权力，因而无法同意转让这种权力来让他人剥夺他的生命。当然我们也看到：后来这些人获得了国王的赦免，其理由正如洛克在这篇文章的第二章第11节中所说。而且，正因为任何人都没有剥夺他自己的生命的权力，所以我们才说自杀是错的而不是对的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-2 15:48

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-2 17:59 编辑

Chapter V.
Of Property.
第五章 论财产权利

§25. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity. But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.
25.不管我们考虑自然的理性，它告诉我们：人一旦出生，便拥有保存自身的权利，因而需要吃喝，以及诸如此类的自然提供给他们生存的物品：还是考虑上帝的启示，它也给了我们一种解释：上帝将创造的这个世界给予了亚当，然后给予了挪亚和他的儿子，这非常清楚，正如大卫王所说：上帝将地赐给了人子（诗篇：115：16）；赐给了人类共有。但这样假设之后，看起来似乎还是非常难以理解：任何人究竟如何对任何一件物品拥有财产权：我自己也不满足于这样的回答，如果在上帝将世界给予亚当及他的后代共有的假设的基础上，很难弄清财产权，那么，在上帝将世界给予亚当，然后给与他的继承者这样的假设的基础上，除了一个世界性君主，任何人都不可能拥有任何财产。但是我将努力说明，人类如何可以分而拥有上帝赐给人类共有的这个世界，对此并没有一个所有共有者明确订立的契约。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-2 16:55

§26. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho' all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i.e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life.
26.将这个世界赐给人类共有的上帝，也给予了他们理性来使用它以达致最好的生活状态和便利性。这世界和世上的一切，都赐给了人类以支持和帮助他们生存。虽然，世上自然生产的所有果实以及喂养的兽禽都属于人类共有，因为它们是由自然之手非人工生产出来的；没有人最初就对这些任何一件物品拥有排他性的私有支配权，因为这是它们的自然状态：然而，既然赐给人类使用，在用于任何用途或者有益于任何个人之前，就必须以某种方式来占有它们。原始的印第安人不知道分居，仍然共同生活在一起，那些喂养他的果实或者野味，也必须是他的，这样在被他享用之前，其他的人才不再对属于他的那部分食物拥有任何权利。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-2 18:00

§27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.
27.虽然，土地以及一切低等生物，为所有人所共有，然而每个人都拥有他自身：除了他自己没有人对其人身拥有任何权利。他身体所进行的劳动，他双手所工作的成果，我们可以说，应该恰当的归于他自己。只要他使之脱离自然所提供的状态的东西，他就掺进了他的劳动并将他自己的某些东西与之联在了一起，因此而成为了他的财产。既然是由他来使这件物品脱离自然的状态，它便因为他的劳动而附加了某些东西，从而排斥了他人对这件物品的共有权利：因为这种劳动是劳动者无可置疑的财产，所以除了他就没有人对那件物品拥有权利，至少在还留有足够的一样好的共有物品的情况下是这样。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-3 11:51

§28. He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.
28.谁在橡树下拾得橡子或者在林中从树上采摘苹果充饥，无疑就占有了它们。没有人能够否认这食物属于他。于是我就问：是从什么时候开始这些食物就是他的了？在他消化的时候？或者在他吃的时候？或者在他煮的时候？或者在他将食物拿回家的时候？还是在他采摘的时候？很明白，如果在他最初采摘的时候不属于他，以后就不会了。劳动在它们和共有之物之间作了区分：劳动为它们附加了比万物之母提供的更多的东西；于是它们变成了他的私有权利。对此谁会说：他如此占有那些橡子或苹果，没有权利拥有它们，因为他没有经过全体人类的同意？这样将人类共有的东西据为己有是一种抢劫吗？如果这样的同意为必需，那么尽管上帝赐予了人丰富的食物，也早已饿死了。我们看到在共有并由契约继续保持共有的物品中，从共有状态取出任何部分或使之脱落自然状态的任何物品，财产权就开始了；若不是这样，共有就没有意义了。而从共有物中取出这一部分或那一部分，并不依赖于所有共有者的明确同意。这样在任何地方，我的马所咀嚼的牧场，我的仆人所割的草地，我所挖掘的矿藏，我都有权利将它们从共有状态变成我的财产，而无需任何人的分配或同意。是我的劳动将它们脱离共有状态的，确定了我对它们的财产权。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-3 11:58

§29. By making an explicit consent of every commoner, necessary to any one's appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat, which their father or master had provided for them in common, without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.
29.如果任何人占用共有之物的任何部分，都必须经过每个共有人的明确同意，那么孩子们或者仆人们就不能自已切取他们的父亲或主人提供给他们的还没有分配给每个人的肉。虽然山泉流动的水属于每个人，然而谁能怀疑：水罐里的水仅仅属于汲水的人？在共有的地方，平等的属于她（自然之母）所有的孩子，他的劳动已经将水从自然之手中取走，从而他也就占有了它。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-3 12:08

§30. Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian's who hath killed it，it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. And amongst those who are counted the civilized part of mankind, who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this original law of nature, for the beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place; and by virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind; or what ambergris any one takes up here, is by the labour that removes it out of that common state nature left it in, made his property, who takes that pains about it. And even amongst us, the hare that any one is hunting, is thought his who pursues her during the chase: for being a beast that is still looked upon as common, and no man's private possession; whoever has employed so much labour about any of that kind, as to find and pursue her, has thereby removed her from the state of nature, wherein she was common, and hath begun a property.
30.这样，这一理性的法则使得谁杀死印第安人的野鹿，它就是谁的食物，他在这只鹿上花费了劳动，虽然之前它是每个人的共有之物。在那些被认为是文明的部分人类中，都制定和扩充了制定法来决定财产权，这条从之前共有的状态中开始财产权的最初的自然法，仍然发生作用；依据这一点，在广阔仍为人类所共有的海洋中，捕到的鱼，或得到的鲸晶（抹香鲸肠内的结晶物，一种贵重的香料），是由谁通过劳动花费了辛苦使之脱离自然存在的共有状态，就是谁的财产。即使在我们中间，任何人猎到的野兔，也被认为是追捕它的人的财产：因为野兽仍然看作是共有之物，而不是任何人的私有财产；任何人对这类动物花费了劳动，比如发现和追捕，并因此而使它脱离自然状态，之前它是共有，之后就变成财产了。
作者: 李苗    时间: 2011-7-3 15:45

翻译稿费知多少？
作者: 李大苗    时间: 2011-7-3 17:48

39# WIND
洛克对美洲的了解，应当说是不充分的，有些甚至是错误的。

对于原始社会的了解，是摩尔根深入详细调查写出《原始社会》这部文著时才开始清晰起来的。而洛克时代，他只能靠假设。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-3 17:57

39# WIND
洛克对美洲的了解，应当说是不充分的，有些甚至是错误的。

对于原始社会的了解，是摩尔根深入详细调查写出《原始社会》这部文著时才开始清晰起来的。而洛克时代，他只能靠假设。
李大苗 发表于 2011-7-3 17:48
这段并为牵涉到完全描述印第安人问题。我想他在这篇文章中只是拿一种当时存在的原始状态来说明问题罢了。此段中说到印第安人猎杀到食物之后，便拥有了财产权，当然印第安人是没有这些财产权观念的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 09:04

§31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, makes a right to them, then any one may engross as much as he will. To which I answer, Not so. The same law of nature, that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, 1 Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given it us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much he may by his labour fix a property in: whatever is beyond this, is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. And thus, considering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few spenders; and to how small a part of that provision the industry of one man could extend itself, and engross it to the prejudice of others; especially keeping within the bounds, set by reason, of what might serve for his use; there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property so established.
31.也许有人会反对这种说法，认为如果采集橡子或者其它土地上的果实，就构成了对它们的权利，那么，任何人都可以想占有多少就占有多少。对此我的回答是：并非如此。同样的自然法则，以这种方式给予我们财产权，也以这样的方式约束那样的财产权。上帝已经厚赐给了我们一切（提摩太前书：6：17），这是被人类灵感确认的理性的声音。但是祂在多大的程度上赐予我们呢？以享用为度。在一件物品败坏之前任何人能够使用多少，他通过劳动就对其拥有多大的财产权；超过这个限度就不是他所应得而属于别人了。上帝为人所造的不是为了败坏和毁灭。这样一来，考虑到在很长一段时间内，自然提供了大量的物产，而消费者很少；一个人的劳作所能独占而不利于他人的财产其实是很少的一部分；特别是不超越由理性所确定的可供他使用的物产范围；这样建立起来的财产权应该就没有多大争议的空间了。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 10:00

§32. But the chief matter of property being now not the fruits of the earth, and the beasts that subsist on it, but the earth itself; as that which takes in and carries with it all the rest; I think it is plain, that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates, and can use the product of, so much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclose it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right to say every body else has an equal title to it，and therefore he cannot appropriate, he cannot inclose, without the consent of all his fellow-commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man also to labour, and the penury of his condition required it of him. God and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth, i.e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out something upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of God, subdued, tilled and sowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him.
32.但是，财产权的主要问题现在不是土地上的果实，也不是土地上生存的兽禽，而是土地本身；因为它容纳和包含了其余的一切；我认为很明白：土地财产权的获得也同前述一样。一个人能耕耘，种植，改良和培育多少土地以及能使用多少土地的产出，他就拥有多少财产权。可以这么说，他通过他的劳动从共有之物中圈给自己。不能说因为其余的人对其拥有平等的资格而使他的权利无效，因而如果没有所有共有者的同意他不能占有，不能圈入。上帝，当祂将这个世界赐给人类共有的时候，也令其必需劳动，而人的贫乏境况也会这样要求。上帝和他的理性都要求他开垦土地，换言之，为了有益于生活而改善土地，且因此而附加他自己的劳动。谁服从上帝的命令，对土地的任何部分开垦耕耘播种，谁就因此而附加了他的财产，这种权利是别人没有资格要求的，如果夺走，就不可能不对他造成损害。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 10:10

§33. Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left for others because of his enclosure for himself: for he that leaves as much as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. No body could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst: and the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.
33.这种占有任何一块土地用来改善的做法，也没有对任何他人造成损害，因为还剩有足够且同样好的土地；并且超过尚未取得土地的人的需求。所以，实际上，不会因为他的圈入土地而使留给他人的土地有所减少：因为他留下了足够多的土地可供别人使用，就如同完全没有拿走什么一样。没有人能够认为另一个人喝了很多水就伤害了他，因为尚有一整条河的同样的水可供他解渴：而就土地和水来说，两者都足够，情况就完全相同。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 10:26

§34. God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, (and labour was to be his title to it;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement, as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour: if he did, it is plain he desired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as good left, as that already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to.
34.上帝将世界赐给人类共有；但是既然祂给予他们是为了他们的利益，是为了他们能够从中获得最大的生活便利，就不能假定祂的意图是一直维持共有而不开垦的状态。祂将世界赐给人勤勉和理性的使用，（而劳动是拥有它的资格）而不是赐给好争吵的人来幻想和觊觎的。谁还有同那已被占用的一样好的物产可供改善，就无需抱怨，也不应当染指已经被别人的劳动改善好了的东西：如果他这样做，很明白，他是想从他人的辛苦中获益，对此他没有权利要求，这不是上帝给予他与其他人共有的用以劳动的土地，而共有的土地上还留有同已被占有的同样好的土地，比他所能使用或他的勤勉所能及的还要多。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 11:38

§35. It is true, in land that is common in England, or any other country, where there is plenty of people under government, who have money and commerce, no one can inclose or appropriate any part, without the consent of all his fellowcommoners; because this is left common by compact, i.e. by the law of the land, which is not to be violated. And though it be common, in respect of some men, it is not so to all mankind; but is the joint property of this country, or this parish. Besides, the remainder, after such enclosure, would not be as good to the rest of the commoners, as the whole was when they could all make use of the whole; whereas in the beginning and first peopling of the great common of the world, it was quite otherwise. The law man was under, was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. That was his property which could not be taken from him where-ever he had fixed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth, and having dominion, we see are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by commanding to subdue, gave authority so far to appropriate: and the condition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, necessarily introduces private possessions.
35.确实，在英格兰所共有的土地上，或者在任何一个其它的国家，在政府之下有大量的臣民，他们拥有金钱并从事贸易，若没有其他共有者的同意，任何人都不能圈入或占用任何土地；因为这是由契约确定保留的共有土地，换言之，由相关的土地法律确定，不可侵犯。虽然这些土地对一些人而言共有，对所有人类却不是这样；它仅仅是这个国家或者这个教区的共有财产。 此外，经过那样的圈地之后余下的部分，对于其余的共有者而言也不再同之前一样好了，因为之前他们能够取用所有的土地；然而在最初定居于这个世界的时候，情形是完全不同的。那时人之上的法律是鼓励占有的。上帝命令，而他自己的贫乏也迫使他去劳动。那就是他的财产权，无论他在哪里确定都不能从他手中夺走。因此，开垦或者耕种土地与拥有支配权，我们看到是连在一起的。前者给与了后者资格。于是，上帝通过令其开垦土地，而给予其占用的权力：并且人类生活的条件也要求劳动和原料，从而必然地引入了私人占有。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 13:24

§36. The measure of property nature has well set by the extent of men's labour and the conveniencies of life: no man's labour could subdue, or appropriate all; nor could his enjoyment consume more than a small part; so that it was impossible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of another, or acquire to himself a property, to the prejudice of his neighbour, who would still have room for as good, and as large a possession (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. This measure did confine every man's possession to a very moderate proportion, and such as he might appropriate to himself, without injury to any body．In the first ages of the world, when men were more in danger to be lost, by wandering from their company, in the then vast wilderness of the earth, than to be straitened for want of room to plant in. And the same measure may be allowed still without prejudice to any body, as full as the world seems: for supposing a man, or family, in the state they were at first peopling of the world by the children of Adam, or Noah; let him plant in some inland, vacant places of America, we shall find that the possessions he could make himself, upon the measures we have given, would not be very large, nor, even to this day, prejudice the rest of mankind, or give them reason to complain, or think themselves injured by this man's encroachment, though the race of men have now spread themselves to all the corners of the world, and do infinitely exceed the small number was at the beginning. Nay, the extent of ground is of so little value, without labour, that I have heard it affirmed, that in Spain itself a man may be permitted to plough, sow and reap, without being disturbed, upon land he has no other title to, but only his making use of it. But, on the contrary, the inhabitants think themselves beholden to him, who, by his industry on neglected, and consequently waste land, has increased the stock of corn, which they wanted. But be this as it will, which I lay no stress on; this I dare boldly affirm, that the same rule of propriety, (viz.) that every man should have as much as he could make use of, would hold still in the world, without straitening any body; since there is land enough in the world to suffice double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit agreement of men to put a value on it, introduced (by consent) larger possessions, and a right to them; which, how it has done, I shall by and by shew more at large.
36.财产权的尺度自然已经由人的劳动和生活便利所能扩展的范围决定好了：没有人的劳动能够开垦或者占有所有的土地；他的享用也仅仅只能消耗一小部分；所以，以这种方式，任何一个人不可能去侵占另一个人的权利，或者为他自己获得财产而损害他的邻人，他的邻人仍然拥有其占用之前一样好和一样大的选择空间。这种尺度将每个人的财产限制在一个适度的规模，这样一来他自己可以占有而不会伤害别人。在世界的初期，当人们在地球上广阔的荒野中离群游荡的时候，死亡的危险比缺少土地耕种来得更为迫切。现在世界看起来已经人满，同样的尺度继续允许也许仍然不会伤害其他人：试想亚当或者挪亚的孩子中一个人或者一个家庭最初在世界上定居的情形；让他在美洲内陆的空地上开垦种植，我们可以发现在我们给他的限度内他能够为他自己占有的财产不会很大，甚至今天，也不会对其余的人类造成损害，或者给予其余人抱怨的理由，或者认为他们自己因此人的占有而受到侵害，虽然现在人类种族已经扩散到了世界所有的角落，并无限的超过了最初的少量人数。不，若没有劳动，土地所能产生的价值是非常小的。我确切的听说过：在西班牙，一个人可以不受干扰的被允许耕地，播种和收获，即便他对这片土地没有任何资格，而仅仅耕种它。但是，当地的居民反而认为自己受惠于他，通过他在被忽视因而是荒芜的土地上的劳作，增加了他们所需的谷物的供应。虽然如此，这并不是我想要强调的；而我敢大胆的断言：这同样的正当性规则，即每个人只要他能用多少，他就可以拥有多少，仍然在世界上保持着，而不会限制任何人；因为，假如没有发明货币并默许赋予其一定的价值，从而引入（基于同意）更大的占有和财产权的话，世界上尚有足够的土地来满足成倍的居民；而货币如何形成，我将一步步充分加以说明。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 19:42

§37. This is certain, that in the beginning, before the desire of having more than man needed had altered the intrinsic value of things, which depends only on their usefulness to the life of man; or had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wasting or decay, should be worth a great piece of flesh, or a whole heap of corn; though men had a right to appropriate, by their labour, each one of himself, as much of the things of nature, as he could use: yet this could not be much, nor to the prejudice of others, where the same plenty was still left to those who would use the same industry. To which let me add, that he who appropriates land to himself by his labour, does not lessen, but increase the common stock of mankind: for the provisions serving to the support of human life, produced by one acre of inclosed and cultivated land, are (to speak much within compass) ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre of land of an equal richness lying waste in common. And therefore he that incloses land, and has a greater plenty of the conveniencies of life from ten acres, than he could have from an hundred left to nature, may truly be said to give ninety acres to mankind: for his labour now supplies him with provisions out of ten acres, which were but the product of an hundred lying in common. I have here rated the improved land very low, in making its product but as ten to one, when it is much nearer an hundred to one: for I ask, whether in the wild woods and uncultivated waste of America, left to nature, without any improvement, tillage or husbandry, a thousand acres yield the needy and wretched inhabitants as many conveniencies of life, as ten acres of equally fertile land do in Devonshire, where they are well cultivated? Before the appropriation of land, he who gathered as much of the wild fruit, killed, caught, or tamed, as many of the beasts, as he could; he that so employed his pains about any of the spontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the state which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby acquire a propriety in them: but if they perished, in his possession, without their due use; if the fruits rotted, or the venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common law of nature, and was liable to be punished; he invaded his neighbour's share, for he had no right, farther than his use called for any of them, and they might serve to afford him conveniencies of life.
37.这是肯定的：最初，在占有超过人所需的物品的欲望改变其本身价值之前，这种价值仅仅依赖于它们对人生活的功用；或者同意，一小块能够无损耗不败坏的保留的黄色金属，可以值一大块肉或者一整堆谷物；虽然每个人有权利通过他的劳动去占有他所能使用的自然物品：但是这不会太多，也不会损害到他人，对于那些同样勤劳的人而言，留下来的仍然是非常多的。对这一点让我再补充一下：谁通过他的劳动占有土地，不是减少而是增加人类共同的储蓄：因为这些服务于人类生活的供应，通过圈入和开垦一英亩的土地所提供的，将十倍于同等肥沃而处于共有的荒废状态的一英亩土地。所以，谁圈入土地，从十英亩土地上所获得生活便利，将比他让一百英亩土地处于自然状态所获得要多，真可以说他给了人类九十英亩土地：因为他的劳动现在使十英亩的土地所提供的物品相当于一百英亩自然状态的土地。在此我对改良的土地的产出的估计是非常低的，仅仅定为十比一，而很可能会趋近于一百比一：我试问，在美洲丛林未开垦的荒芜的土地，处于自然状态，没有任何改良和耕种，一千英亩土地为贫穷可怜的居民所提供的物品是否像英格兰德文郡同等肥沃并得到良好开垦的十英亩土地一样多呢？在土地占有之前，谁尽可能多的采集野果，杀死，捕捉或驯养尽可能多的兽禽；谁通过劳动将自己的辛苦用于任何自然提供的物产，用任何途径改变他们原有的自然状态，便因此而对占有它们获得了正当性：但是如果在他的占有中，它们未用于应得的用途而败坏；如果在他消费之前果实腐烂，或者猎杀的野兽变质，他就冒犯了自然的共同法，并因此而应受惩罚；他侵占了他的邻人可享有的部分，因为他没有权利去要求远超他的生活所需要的任何物品。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 20:26

§38. The same measures governed the possession of land too: whatsoever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made use of, before it spoiled, that was his peculiar right; whatsoever he enclosed, and could feed, and make use of, the cattle and product was also his. But if either the grass of his enclosure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perished without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithstanding his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, and might be the possession of any other. Thus, at the beginning, Cain might take as much ground as he could till, and make it his own land, and yet leave enough to Abel's sheep to feed on; a few acres would serve for both their possessions. But as families increased, and industry inlarged their stocks, their possessions inlarged with the need of them; but yet it was commonly without any fixed property in the ground they made use of, till they incorporated, settled themselves together, and built cities; and then, by consent, they came in time, to set out the bounds of their distinct territories, and agree on limits between them and their neighbours; and by laws within themselves, settled the properties of those of the same society: for we see, that in that part of the world which was first inhabited, and therefore like to be best peopled, even as low down as Abraham's time, they wandered with their flocks, and their herds, which was their substance, freely up and down; and this Abraham did, in a country where he was a stranger. Whence it is plain, that at least a great part of the land lay in common; that the inhabitants valued it not, nor claimed property in any more than they made use of. But when there was not room enough in the same place, for their herds to feed together, they by consent, as Abraham and Lot did, Gen. xiii. 5. separated and inlarged their pasture, where it best liked them. And for the same reason Esau went from his father, and his brother, and planted in mount Seir, Gen. xxxvi. 6.
38.这同样的尺度也统治着土地的占有：无论在败坏之前他耕种和收获，储存和使用什么作物，那都是他特有的权利；无论他圈入喂养和使用什么动物，动物和产出也是他的。但是如果他圈入的青草烂在了地上，他种植的果树果实腐烂而没有收集和储存，这部分土地，尽管为他所圈入，仍然被视作浪费，而本来可以为他人所用的。因此，最初，该隐（亚当的长子）可以取用他所能开垦的土地，并使之成为他的土地，仍然会留给亚伯足够喂羊的土地；几英亩就足够他俩占用了。但是随着家庭的增长，劳作增加了他们的储蓄，他们所拥有的财产随着他们的需要而增大了；但是他们使用的土地仍然共有而没有确定财产权，直到他们结合在一起定居下来并建立城市；于是，基于同意，他们在约定的时间聚在一起，确立他们各自的领土边界，并商定了他们与邻人的边界；在他们内部通过法律，解决同一社群中的财产权问题：因为我们看到，在最初人们定居的地方，因而是最好定居的，甚至到了亚伯拉罕的时代，人们还是带着他们的羊群牛群这些财产到处自由的游荡；而这个亚伯拉罕还是他放牧国家的外人。由此很明白：至少当时还有相当大部分的土地处于共有状态；当地的居民没有看重也没有宣称超出他们所能使用的土地的财产权。但是在同一地方当没有足够的土地来放牧他们的牛群的时候，他们基于同意，就像亚伯拉罕与罗得所做的那样（创世纪：13：5~6），分开并扩大了他们的牧场，在那里也是很适合他们的。由于同样的原因，以扫离开他的父亲和兄弟，到西珥山去种植（创世纪：36：6~8）。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-4 20:43

§39. And thus, without supposing any private dominion, and property in Adam, over all the world, exclusive of all other men, which can no way be proved, nor any one's property be made out from it; but supposing the world given, as it was, to the children of men in common, we see how labour could make men distinct titles to several parcels of it, for their private uses; wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel.
39.因此，无需假定亚当对全世界有排他性的任何私有支配权和财产权，对此既没有办法证明，由此也不能得出任何人的财产权；但是假定这个（上帝）给予我们的世界，曾经为人子所共有，我们可以看到劳动怎样的使人有明确的资格为他们各自私有的用途分而拥有它；对此没有怀疑的权利，也没有争论的余地。

§40. Nor is it so strange, as perhaps before consideration it may appear, that the property of labour should be able to over-balance the community of land: for it is labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing; and let any one consider what the difference is between an acre of land planted with tobacco or sugar, sown with wheat or barley, and an acre of the same land lying in common, without any husbandry upon it, and he will find, that the improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value. I think it will be but a very modest computation to say, that of the products of the earth useful to the life of man nine tenths are the effects of labour: nay, if we will rightly estimate things as they come to our use, and cast up the several expenses about them, what in them is purely owing to nature, and what to labour, we shall find, that in most of them ninety-nine hundredths are wholly to be put on the account of labour.
40.劳动的财产权（劳动所获得的财产）应该能够超过土地的共有产出，应该不会像在仔细考虑之前那么奇怪了：因为确实是劳动使每件东西具有了不同的价值；如果任何人考虑一下种植了烟草或甘蔗，播种了小麦或大麦的一英亩土地与一英亩同样的土地处于共有状态的不同，那么他就会发现，劳动的改良创造了它的绝大部分价值。我以非常保守的估计认为，土地有益于人的生活的产出十分之九都是劳动的结果：不仅如此，如果我们正确地估计我们所使用的东西，并将各项花费算进来的话，哪些属于纯粹自然提供，哪些属于劳动提供，我们将会发现，绝大部分物品百分之九十九都应归于劳动。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-5 09:50

§41. There cannot be a clearer demonstration of any thing, than several nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life; whom nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with the materials of plenty, i.e. a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance, what might serve for food, raiment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we enjoy: and a king of a large and fruitful territory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a day-labourer in England.
41.关于这一点，没有比美洲几个国家更明显清晰的实例了，这些国家土地广袤，在生活的便利上却贫乏；自然为他们提供了大量的物产，与对待别的国家一样慷慨，换言之，肥沃的土壤，易于生产丰富的物品，以供衣食享受所需；然而，缺乏改善土地的劳动，却没有我们享受的便利的百分之一：并且那里统治一大片肥沃领地的国王，食住穿着还不如英格兰一个做日工的人。

§42. To make this a little clearer, let us but trace some of the ordinary provisions of life, through their several progresses, before they come to our use, and see how much they receive of their value from human industry. Bread, wine and cloth, are things of daily use, and great plenty; yet notwithstanding, acorns, water and leaves, or skins, must be our bread, drink and clothing, did not labour furnish us with these more useful commodities: for whatever bread is more worth than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or silk, than leaves, skins or moss, that is wholly owing to labour and industry; the one of these being the food and raiment which unassisted nature furnishes us with; the other, provisions which our industry and pains prepare for us, which how much they exceed the other in value, when any one hath computed, he will then see how much labour makes the far greatest part of the value of things we enjoy in this world: and the ground which produces the materials, is scarce to be reckoned in, as any, or at most, but a very small part of it; so little, that even amongst us, land that is left wholly to nature, that hath no improvement of pasturage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, waste; and we shall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing.
This shews how much numbers of men are to be preferred to largeness of dominions; and that the increase of lands, and the right employing of them, is the great art of government: and that prince, who shall be so wise and godlike, as by established laws of liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest industry of mankind, against the oppression of power and narrowness of party, will quickly be too hard for his neighbours: but this by the by. To return to the argument in hand.
42.为了使这一点更明朗一些，让我们来追踪一下几件普通生活用品在我们使用之前的几段过程，来看看他们的价值包含多少人类劳动。面包，葡萄酒和衣服，乃日常用品，大量使用；然而，若没有劳动为我们提供面包，饮料和衣服这些更有用的日用品，就只有使用橡子，水和树叶或树皮了：因为无论怎样，面包比橡子更有价值，葡萄酒比水更有价值，衣服或丝绸比树叶树皮或苔藓更有价值，这些统统归功于劳动；一种衣食纯粹是自然提供给我们的；另一种，是我们的劳作和辛苦提供给我们的，后者在价值上超过前者多少，任何人只要算一下他就会发现劳动创造了我们享用的绝大多数物品的多少价值：而生产这些原料的土地，却几乎没有价值，最多，只占其中很少的一部分；如此之少，以至于在我们中间，将完全留待自然状态没有改善为牧场耕地或林场的土地，叫作“荒地”，而确实也是；我们也发现它的收益几乎等于零。
这就表明：人口众多优于领土广阔；增加土地并正确的使用它们，是政府的重要技术：一个君主，应当足够明智如神，通过建立自由的法律来可靠的保护和鼓励人类诚实的劳动，反对权力的压迫和党派的狭隘，这将迅速的增强他的国力而使邻国感到压力：不过这只是顺带提一下。
再回到刚才的辩论。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-5 10:02

§43. An acre of land, that bears here twenty bushels of wheat, and another in America, which, with the same husbandry, would do the like, are, without doubt, of the same natural intrinsic value: but yet the benefit mankind receives from the one in a year, is worth 5l. and from the other possibly not worth a penny, if all the profit an Indian received from it were to be valued, and sold here; at least, I may truly say, not one thousandth. It is labour then which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth any thing: it is to that we owe the greatest part of all its useful products; for all that the straw, bran, bread, of that acre of wheat, is more worth than the product of an acre of as good land, which lies waste, is all the effect of labour: for it is not barely the plough-man's pains, the reaper's and thresher's toil, and the baker's sweat, is to be counted into the bread we eat; the labour of those who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought the iron and stones, who felled and framed the timber employed about the plough, mill, oven, or any other utensils, which are a vast number, requisite to this corn, from its being feed to be sown to its being made bread, must all be charged on the account of labour, and received as an effect of that: nature and the earth furnished only the almost worthless materials, as in themselves. It would be a strange catalogue of things, that industry provided and made use of, about every loaf of bread, before it came to our use, if we could trace them; iron, wood, leather, bark, timber, stone, bricks, coals, lime, cloth, dying drugs, pitch, tar, masts, ropes, and all the materials made use of in the ship, that brought any of the commodities made use of by any of the workmen, to any part of the work; all which it would be almost impossible, at least too long, to reckon up.
43.这里年产20蒲式尔(约为730升)小麦的一英亩（约为4000平方米）土地和美洲的一英亩土地，若用同样的方法耕种，获得的收成会差不多，没有疑问，它们具有同样的自然本身的价值：然而，人类一年从前者可获益5英镑，如果一个印第安人将所有的收成估价并在这里出卖，他可能得不到1便士（1英镑=100便士）；如果允许我实说的话，不到千分之一。所以，是劳动将绝大部分价值加在土地上，若没有劳动它几乎将分文不值：我们将绝大部分有用的产品都归于劳动的作用；因为一英亩小麦所产的茎杆，麦麸，面包，远比一英亩同样好却荒芜的土地所产的物品多，都是劳动的结果：因为不仅仅耕地人的辛劳，收割人脱粒人的劳动，都要算进我们所食用的面包之中；那些驯养耕牛的人，那些采掘和冶炼铁矿石的人，那些砍伐和制造用于犁，磨，烤炉或其它用具的木料的人，这许许多多人的劳动，从播种到制成面包，只要是生产这种谷物所必需的，都必须算进劳动之中，并认为是劳动的结果：自然和土地本身提供的几乎都是没有价值的原料。如果我们追踪一下我们食用的每块面包的劳动所提供的东西，那么将会发现这是一个不太可理解的物品清单；铁，树，皮革，树皮，木头，石头，砖，煤炭，石灰，布料，染料，沥青，焦油，桅杆，绳索，以及所有造船的材料——船运来了其他工人制造的这件工作所需要的物品——完全列举几乎不可能，至少是太长。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-5 10:29

§44. From all which it is evident, that though the things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property; and that, which made up the great part of what he applied to the support or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conveniencies of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others.
44.由以上，很明显：虽然自然的东西赐给了人类共有，然而，既然人是他自己的主人，是他自己人身和行为或劳动的所有者，他依靠自身就拥有了财产权的重要基础；当发明和技术改善生活的便利的时候，那些用以支持和慰藉他的生命的大部分用品，完全的属于他自己而不与他人共有。

§45. Thus labour, in the beginning, gave a right of property, wherever any one was pleased to employ it upon what was common, which remained a long while the far greater part, and is yet more than mankind makes use of. Men, at first, for the most part, contented themselves with what unassisted nature offered to their necessities: and though afterwards, in some parts of the world, (where the increase of people and stock, with the use of money, had made land scarce, and so of some value) the several communities settled the bounds of their distinct territories, and by laws within themselves regulated the properties of the private men of their society, and so, by compact and agreement, settled the property which labour and industry began; and the leagues that have been made between several states and kingdoms, either expressly or tacitly disowning all claim and right to the land in the others possession, have, by common consent, given up their pretences to their natural common right, which originally they had to those countries, and so have, by positive agreement, settled a property amongst themselves, in distinct parts and parcels of the earth; yet there are still great tracts of ground to be found, which (the inhabitants thereof not having joined with the rest of mankind, in the consent of the use of their common money) lie waste, and are more than the people who dwell on it do, or can make use of, and so still lie in common; tho' this can scarce happen amongst that part of mankind that have consented to the use of money.
45.所以，初始，只要人愿意将他的劳动施与共有物——共有物在一段长时期内绝大部分仍将共有，并超过人类所能使用——之上，劳动就给予了他财产权。最初，就绝大部分人而言，满足于自然直接提供给他们的生活必需品：然而后来，世界某些部分的社群，（在那里，人口和储蓄的增长，并随着货币的使用，使土地变得不足，因而有了一些价值）多个社群之间确定了他们各自的领土边界，并在社群内部通过法律管理他们社会的私人财产权，于是通过契约和协议，确立了由劳动开始的财产权；多个国家和王国之间则订立盟约，以明确表达或默认的形式否定了对彼此的土地要求和权利，从而，基于共同的同意，放弃了他们原初对于别的国家所拥有的自然的共有权利的要求，这样，世界上不同的地区便通过订立的协议，确定了它们之间的财产权；然而还有大片土地被发现，（那里的居民并未与其余的人类通过使用共同的货币而融合在一起）这些土地处于荒芜状态，多于那里的居民所能够使用，因而仍处于共有状态；不过这种情形很少发生在那些同意使用货币的人群之中。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-5 10:48

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-5 10:49 编辑

§46. The greatest part of things really useful to the life of man, and such as the necessity of subsisting made the first commoners of the world look after, as it cloth the Americans now, are generally things of short duration; such as, if they are not consumed by use, will decay and perish of themselves: gold, silver and diamonds, are things that fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real use, and the necessary support of life. Now of those good things which nature hath provided in common, every one had a right (as hath been said) to as much as he could use, and property in all that he could effect with his labour; all that his industry could extend to, to alter from the state nature had put it in, was his. He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples, had thereby a property in them, they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look, that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And indeed it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, so that it perished not uselessly in his possession, these he also made use of. And if he also bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock，destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour，or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of any thing uselessly in it.
46.对人的生活真正有用的绝大部分物品，比如令世界最初的共有者所寻求的那些生活必需品，就像现在的美洲人寻求的布料一样，一般都是些存在周期短的物品；如果它们不能被使用而消耗，也将腐烂变质：金银和钻石，由人们的幻想或同意而赋予了它们大于真实用途和对生命的必要性的价值。现在，那些自然提供给人类共有的好东西，每个人都有权利（如前所述）能用多少便占有多少，只要他的劳动所能施加影响的都是他的财产；他的勤勉能及的，都将自然提供的物品转变为他的。他采集100蒲式尔的橡子或苹果，便对它们拥有了财产权，它们一经采集便成为了他的财产。他只要注意在它们败坏之前使用它们，否则就多取了他应得的那份而掠夺了别人的那份。事实上，贮藏超过他所能够使用的物品，不仅是一件愚蠢的事情，也是一件不诚实的事情。如果他将其中的部分施与他人，这样不致于在他的占有下无用的腐烂，这也算他在使用。又假如他将一周内会腐烂的李子换成坚果，这可以好好的保存一年供他食用，他也没有造成什么损害；只要在他手里没有物品无用的腐烂，他就没有浪费公共储蓄，没有毁坏本属于别人的那份物品。再者，如果他愿意将他的坚果换成一块他喜爱其颜色的金属，或者将他的绵羊换成贝壳，或者将羊毛换成闪闪发光的水晶石或钻石，并终生保存，这都没有侵犯别人的权利，这些可长期保存的物品，他想存多少就存多少；是否超过他的正当财产范围，不在于他占有多少，而在于这些物品是否无用的败坏掉。

§47. And thus came in the use of money, some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly useful, but perishable supports of life.
47.货币就这样使用起来了，某种人们可以长久保存而不致败坏的物品，基于相互的同意，人们可以用于交换那些真正有用的不过易于腐烂的生活品。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-5 11:40

§48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them: for supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with the rest of the world, wherein there were but an hundred families, but there were sheep, horses and cows, with other useful animals, wholesome fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred thousand times as many, but nothing in the island, either because of its commonness, or perishableness, fit to supply the place of money; what reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his family, and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced, or they could barter for like perishable, useful commodities, with others? Where there is not some thing, both lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so rich, never so free for them to take: for I ask, what would a man value ten thousand, or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated, and well stocked too with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild common of nature, whatever was more than would supply the conveniencies of life to be had there for him and his family.
48.就像不同程度的勤劳会给人们不同数量的财产，货币的发明也给予了他们机会去保存和扩大财产：想象有这么一个岛屿，与世界其它地方的贸易完全隔绝，在那里只有一百户家庭，但是有绵羊，马和奶牛，和其它一些有用的兽禽和有益健康的果实，以及足够生产十万倍谷物的土地，可是，由于这些物品不是太过普遍就是易于腐烂，岛上竟没有一样东西适合做货币；在这种情况下，那里的任何人在超过他的家庭所需，以及通过自身的劳动生产或与他人物物交换一些类似的易腐的有用的日用品之外又有什么理由去扩充他的财产呢？在任何地方，若没有既稀少又可长久保存的物品，因为宝贵而值得保存，那里的人们就不会趋向于扩大他们的土地财产，尽管土地从未如此肥沃，他们可以如此自由的获取土地：试问，如果有一个人在美洲中部，有一万或者十万英亩优等土地，可以开垦，也储备了耕牛，可是他没有与世界其它地方进行贸易的希望，以用土地的产出来换取货币，那么他会如何评估这片土地呢？并不值得圈占，我们会看到，超过他与他的家人的生活便利所需，他将放弃然后恢复自然的共有状态。

§49. Thus in the beginning all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was any where known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions.
49.因此，世界的初始都像美洲，更像以前的美洲；因为那时候谁也不知道有货币这回事。只要有人在他们邻人中间发现了一种可作货币的物品，你就会看到这人立即会扩大他的财产。

§50. But since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men, whereof labour yet makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out, a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the possessor. This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money: for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.
50.但是，既然金和银与食物，衣服，马车相比，对人的生活用处很小，其价值只能基于人们的同意，由此，在很大程度上，仍然是由劳动决定价值尺度，很明白，人们已经同意不平等的占有地球上的物品，他们通过默认和自愿同意的方式已经找到一种方法，使人可以公平的占有其产出超过他自己能使用的土地，这种方法就是将剩余物品换成任何人都能够无损的保存的金和银；这些金属在持有者手中不会腐烂变质。这种私人占有的不平等，人们之所以能够超出社会的范围无需契约就能实行，仅仅是赋予金银一定的价值，以默认的方式当货币使用：就政府的统治而言，法律调整着财产权，土地的占有由制定法决定。

§51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it. So that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others; what portion a man carved to himself, was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.
51.这样一来，我想，就可以非常容易毫无困难的想象：最初，劳动是如何在自然的共有之物中开始确定财产资格的，以及我们的使用又是如何限制财产权的。所以，对于这样的财产资格就没有争论的理由，对于财产权容许占有多少亦毫无疑问。权利和便利并行；既然一个人对于他的劳动所施与影响的物品拥有权利，所以他也就没有诱惑为他所享用不了的物品付出劳动。这就不会给财产资格留下任何争论的余地，也不容侵犯他人的财产权；一个人据为己有的那部分财产，容易判断；若据为己有的太多，或取用多于他所需要的，这是没有用处的，也是不诚实的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-6 09:04

Chapter VI.
Of Paternal Power.
第六章 论父权力

§52. IT may perhaps be censured as an impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world: and yet possibly it may not be amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal power probably has done, which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title. This may give one reason to ask, whether this might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature and the right of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. 12. Whosoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1. is the style of the Old and New Testament.
§52. 在这种性质的讨论中，去找出世界上已经通用的一些单词和称谓的错误，也许会被指责为一种无礼的批评：然而，当旧词易于引起误解的时候，或许提出新词并不是一件不恰当的事情，像父权力一词所发生的情况，看起来是将父母对孩子的权力完全的置于父亲手中，而母亲却完全没有了；然而，如果我们顾及理性或启示，我们就会发现，她是有平等的资格的。这就使人有理由问，是否称亲权力更恰当？因为无论自然和生育的权利负与儿女什么样的责任，儿女对父母双方的责任都应该是平等的．相应的我们看到上帝的制定法在要求孩子服从的时候每个地方都是将他们连在一起而不加区别的——尊重你的父亲和母亲（出埃及记：20：12），凡诅咒父亲和母亲的（利未记：20：9），你们当畏惧自己的父亲和母亲（利未记：19：3），孩子们，服从你们的父母（以弗所书：6：1），等等，旧约和新约都是这样的风格。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-7 10:36

§53，54（暂不译）

§55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they are wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.
§55. 我承认，孩子生来并不完全处于这种平等的状态，虽然他们应当如此。他们的父母在他们来到这个世界及以后一段时间对他们有一种统治权；但是这种权力是暂时的。这种服从关系类似于他们脆弱的婴儿期所包裹和保护的襁褓：随着他们年龄和理性的成长，逐渐的放松，直到最后完全放开，而任由他自己自由处理一切。

§56. Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.
§56. 亚当被造出来是一个完全的人，他的身体和思想就完全拥有它们的力量和理性，因而在造出来的那一刻便能支持和保护他自己，并依据上帝赋予他的理性的法则指示来支配其自身的行为。自他之后，这世界由他的后代定居，他们生下都是婴儿，虚弱而无助，也没有知识或理解力：但是为了弥补这种不完全状态的缺陷，直到成长和年龄能够消除它们，亚当和依芙，以及他们之后所有的父母，依据自然法，便负有保存，喂养，以及教育他们所生孩子的责任；不是将孩子作为他们自己的作品，而是作为他们自己的创造者——全能的上帝——的作品，他们将为他们的孩子在上帝面前做出交待。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-7 11:31

§57. The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam's children, being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier without it, the law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
§57．统治亚当的法律，与统治他所有后代的法律是一样的，即理性的法则。但是，因为他的后代是以另一种与他不同的自然出生的方式进入世界的，他们生来无知无法使用理性，所以便不能在此时置身于那种法律之下；因为任何人都无须受不是针对他而颁布的法律的约束；这种法律仅仅由理性所颁布，因而在他还不能使用理性的时候便不能说置身于这种法律之下了；亚当的孩子，并非生来就置于理性的法则之下，因而此时是不自由的：因为法律在其真正的意义上来说，与其说是一种限制，倒不如说是一种自由且理智的生物追求其恰当的利益的指示，规定的不过是为了那种法律之下的人的普遍利益而已：如果他们没有法律能够更加幸福，那么法律作为一种无用的东西便会自行消失；将那些约束我们免于掉进泥潭和悬崖的篱笆称之为限制是不恰当的。所以，无论法律被怎样的误解，法律的目的不是为了取消或管制而是为了保存和扩大自由：因为在一切能够制定法律的国家当中，没有法律便没有自由：因为自由是免于他人管制和暴行的自由；在没有法律的地方是不可能有自由的：但是自由并不是像有人告诉我们的那样——每个人做他想做的事：（因为当其他每个人的情绪都可以支配他的时候，他还能有自由吗？）而是在他所置身的那些法律的允许下，自由的处置和决定他想做的事情，他的人身，行为，及他所有的财产，在这些过程中无须服从他人的肆意的意志，而自由的遵循他自己的意志。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-7 15:00

§58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant nonage, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.
§58. 那么，父母对孩子的权力，便是从他们对孩子负有的责任中产生的，在孩童的不完全状态期间照顾其后代。在他们无知的青少年时期对其进行指导并管理其行为，直到理性能够取代父母的位置，这是孩童所需要的也是父母必须承担的：因为上帝既已赋予人理解力以引导其行为，便允许他在自然法的边界之内，拥有一种意志自由及由此所恰当支配的行动自由。但是当他还处于没有自己的理解力来引导他的意志的时候，他便没有任何他自己的意志可遵循：谁为孩子进行理解，谁也必须支持孩子；他必须规定孩子的意志并调整其行为；但是当孩子满足使他父亲成为一个自由人的条件时，这个孩子也便成了自由人。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-8 08:28

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 ...
WIND 发表于 2011-7-1 20:48
在洛克这篇文章中,positive law其实还不是今天所赋予它的那种含义。洛克在接下来的一节中，将法律分为两种，一种是未形成公民社会（政治社会）所统治的法律——自然法，另一种是形成公民社会之后人类所制定的法律即公民法（civil law）.相应的，我认为将civilized society译为文明的社会并不太恰当，一个表面上有所谓法律的社会便称之为文明社会，有极大的误导性。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-8 09:18

§59. This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.
§59．这一点在人所置身的所有的法律——不论是自然法还是公民法——中，都是站得住脚的。一个人是否处于自然法的约束之下？是什么使他享有那种法律下的自由？又是什么给与了他在自然法的范围之内依据他自己的意志处置其财产的自由？我的回答是，是假设他能够理解那种法律的成熟状态，这样他才可能让他的行为不超越这种法律的界限。当他进入那种状态，便假设他知道那种法律在多大的程度上可以作为他的指引，以及他可以在多大的程度上使用他的自由，从而享受自由；而在此之前，其他人必须引导他，假设此人知道法律在多大的程度上允许自由。如果这样的理性状态，这样的审慎年龄使他获得自由，那么同样的理由应当使他的儿子获得自由。一个人是否处于英格兰法律的约束之下？是什么使他享有那种法律之下的自由？即在英格兰法律许可的范围之内，依据他自己的意志处置他的行为和财产的自由？答案是理解英格兰法律的能力；英格兰法律假定在年满21岁时便具有这种能力，在某些情况下还早一些。如果这可以使父亲获得自由，那么也应当使儿子获得自由。在此之前我们知道，这种法律允许儿子没有意志，而只能由他的父亲或监护人的意志来引导，他们为他进行理解。如果父亲死亡，而又没有找到他所信任的替代的人；如果他没有提供一个私人教师在他儿子未成年缺乏理解力的时候来管教他，法律将来照看这件事；其他人必须管教他，并成为他的意志，直到他进入自由状态，他的理解力能够管理他自己的意志。但是之后，父亲与儿子便同等的自由了，如同成年之后的私人教师和学生；他们都平等的服从于同样的法律，父亲对儿子的生命，自由或财产便没有任何的统治权了，无论他们仅仅处于自然法之下的状态，还是置身于一个已经建立起来的政府的肯定性法律之下。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-8 11:45

§60. But if, through defects that may happen out of the ordinary course of nature, any one comes not to such a degree of reason, wherein he might be supposed capable of knowing the law, and so living within the rules of it, he is never capable of being a free man, he is never let loose to the disposure of his own will (because he knows no bounds to it, has not understanding, its proper guide) but is continued under the tuition and government of others, all the time his own understanding is uncapable of that charge. And so lunatics and idiots are never set free from the government of their parents; children, who are not as yet come unto those years whereat they may have; and innocents which are excluded by a natural defect from ever having; thirdly, madmen, which for the present cannot possibly have the use of right reason to guide themselves, have for their guide, the reason that guideth other men which are tutors over them, to seek and procure their good for them, says Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sec. 7. All which seems no more than that duty, which God and nature has laid on man, as well as other creatures, to preserve their offspring, till they can be able to shift for themselves, and will scarce amount to an instance or proof of parent’s regal authority.
§60. 但是如果，因为超出通常的自然进程所发生的缺陷，以致某人不能达致可以假定他能够理解法律并在法律的规则之内生活的理性程度，那么，他也不能成为一个自由的人，不能放松让他按其意志行事（因为他不知道其行为的边界，没有理解力和恰当的引导）而只能在他自己的理解力不能担当那种责任的时间内继续处于他人的教导和管理之下。所以，有精神疾病的人和有精神障碍的人从来不能脱离他们父母的管理；胡克在（Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sec. 7）说，尚未成年的孩童；因为自然缺陷而被排除的缺乏理解力的人；第三，发疯的人，在当时无法使用正确的理性来引导他们自己，只能以他人的理性做他们的引导，来为他们寻求和获得好处。所有这些都没有超过这样一种责任，即上帝和自然负与人——其它生物也一样——保存他们后代的责任，直到他们自己能够接替，而很少可以作为父母享有帝王一样的权力的例子或证明。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-8 12:51

(插一段不太相关的信息,以前在看《英格兰法律解释》的时候，曾经追溯过一个问题，像美国宪制中的最高法院这种机构，对应的是英国中的那种呢？后来发现是贵族院的一种兼职功能。刚才偶然发现2005年的宪制改革法案（constitutional reform act 2005）,据此成立了与美国最高法院更为接近的联合王国最高法院（Supreme Court of the United Kingdom），不过类似于美国最高法院那样的对立法机构的违宪审查权力，不知如何操作？)
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-9 10:04

§61. Thus we are born free, as we are born rational; not that we have actually the exercise of either: age, that brings one, brings with it the other too. And thus we see how natural freedom and subjection to parents may consist together, and are both founded on the same principle. A child is free by his father's title, by his father's understanding, which is to govern him till he hath it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of discretion, and the subjection of a child to his parents, whilst yet short of that age, are so consistent, and so distinguishable, that the most blinded contenders for monarchy, by right of fatherhood, cannot miss this difference; the most obstinate cannot but allow their consistency: for were their doctrine all true, were the right heir of Adam now known, and by that title settled a monarch in his throne, invested with all the absolute unlimited power Sir Robert Filmer talks of; if he should die as soon as his heir were born, must not the child, notwithstanding he were never so free, never so much sovereign, be in subjection to his mother and nurse, to tutors and governors, till age and education brought him reason and ability to govern himself and others? The necessities of his life, the health of his body, and the information of his mind, would require him to be directed by the will of others, and not his own; and yet will any one think, that this restraint and subjection were inconsistent with, or spoiled him of that liberty or sovereignty he had a right to, or gave away his empire to those who had the government of his nonage? This government over him only prepared him the better and sooner for it. If any body should ask me, when my son is of age to be free? I shall answer, just when his monarch is of age to govern. But at what time, says the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6. a man may be said to have attained so far forth the use of reason, as sufficeth to make him capable of those laws whereby he is then bound to guide his actions: this is a great deal more easy for sense to discern, than for any one by skill and learning to determine.
§61. 这才是我们生来自由的意思，就像我们生来理性一样；并不是说我们实际上能够运用两者：年龄带来自由，也同时带来理性。这样我们看到自然自由和服从父母是如何并存的，它们都基于同样的原则。一个孩童靠他父亲的资格，靠他父亲的理解力而获得自由，它将管理他直至他拥有自己的理解力。一个懂事年龄的成年人的自由与尚未成年的孩童对其父母的服从，如此的前后一致，又区别明显，以致于以父权利来为君主制辩护的最瞎眼的人，也不能回避这种区别；最顽固的人也不得不承认它们的一致性：因为如果他们的学说是成立的，如果已经知道亚当的正当的继承人，然后据此确立他为君主，被授予一切“绝对的无限制的权力”（Sir罗伯特•费尔迈所说）；假如亚当的继承人一出生他就死了，难道不管其继承人是多么的不自由，多么的不由自主，就无需服从他的母亲，保姆和私人教师，直到年龄和教育为他带来理性和能力去统治他自己和他人？他生命的必需品，他身体的健康，以及他思想的指导都要求他由他人而不是他自己的意志来引导；然而是否有人认为，这种限制和服从与他的自由和王权相冲突，或将他的帝国让给了他未成年时期的监护人？这种对他的管理仅仅是为了更好更快的预备他。如果谁问我，我的儿子什么时候可以获得自由？我会回答，正是他的君主统治的年龄。明智的胡克（在Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6中）说，但是究竟什么时候才可以说他达到了运用理性的程度，足够使他掌握那些他必须用来引导其行为的法律：这用感觉来识别比任何人用技能和知识来决定都要容易得多。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-9 21:04

§62. Commonwealths themselves take notice of, and allow, that there is a time when men are to begin to act like free men, and therefore before that time require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance, or other public owning of, or submission to the government of their countries.
§62．共同体自身注意到且允许人们在某个时间之后才开始像自由的人一样行动，因此在此之前并不要求忠诚的誓言，或其它公开表示的对他们国家的政府的承认或服从。

§63. The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free; but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched, and as much beneath that of a man, as theirs. This is that which puts the authority into the parents hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this care on their offspring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as His wisdom designed it, to the children's good, as long as they should need to be under it.
§63．那么，人的自由及根据他自己的意志行动的自由，便是建立在他具备理性的基础之上的，理性能够教导他据以管理他自己的法律，并使他知道他能够在多大的程度上任由自己的意志自由。在他拥有理性可引导自身之前，便放松给与其无限制的自由，其实不是给与他一种本性应当自由的特权；而是把他猛推到野兽之中，弃他于一种恶劣的状态之中，远比人的状态要恶劣。这便是将这种权力交到父母手中以管理他们的孩子的未成年期的原因。上帝将用心照看他们的后代规定为他们自己的事情，并赋予他们适当的温柔和挂念的意愿来平衡这种权力，只要他们的孩子必须处于这种权力之下，他们便可以按照祂的智慧所设计的那样，为了孩子们的利益来运用这种权力。

§64. But what reason can hence advance this care of the parents due to their off-spring into an absolute arbitrary dominion of the father, whose power reaches no farther, than by such a discipline, as he finds most effectual, to give such strength and health to their bodies, such vigour and rectitude to their minds, as may best fit his children to be most useful to themselves and others; and, if it be necessary to his condition, to make them work, when they are able, for their own subsistence. But in this power the mother too has her share with the father.
§64．但是有什么理由能够因此而将父母对他们后代的这种关心上升到一种父亲的绝对和肆意的统治权力，他的权力不能超越这样的界限，即通过他所知道的最有效的管教方式，给与孩子的身体力量与健康，给与孩子的思想活力与正直，以使他的孩子成为对自身和他人最有用的人；并且，如果有必要的话，可以使孩子在有能力工作的时候，为他们自身的生存而工作。不过在这种权力上母亲与父亲是共同分享的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-10 09:14

§65. Nay, this power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them, he loses his power over them, which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed; and it belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child, as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue; if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father. And what will become of this paternal power in that part of the world, where one woman hath more than one husband at a time? or in those parts of America, where, when the husband and wife part, which happens frequently, the children are all left to the mother, follow her, and are wholly under her care and provision? If the father die whilst the children are young, do they not naturally every where owe the same obedience to their mother, during their minority, as to their father were he alive? and will any one say, that the mother hath a legislative power over her children? that she can make standing rules, which shall be of perpetual obligation, by which they ought to regulate all the concerns of their property, and bound their liberty all the course of their lives? or can she inforce the observation of them with capital punishments? for this is the proper power of the magistrate, of which the father hath not so much as the shadow. His command over his children is but temporary, and reaches not their life or property: it is but a help to the weakness and imperfection of their nonage, a discipline necessary to their education: and though a father may dispose of his own possessions as he pleases, when his children are out of danger of perishing for want, yet his power extends not to the lives or goods, which either their own industry, or another's bounty has made their's; nor to their liberty neither, when they are once arrived to the infranchisement of the years of discretion. The father's empire then ceases, and he can from thence forwards no more dispose of the liberty of his son, than that of any other man: and it must be far from an absolute or perpetual jurisdiction, from which a man may withdraw himself, having license from divine authority to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife.
§65. 不但如此，这种权力很少基于特别的自然权利，而仅仅因为他是孩子的监护人而赋予父亲，因而当他不再关照他们的时候，他便丧失了对他们的这种权力， 此权力是与他们的喂养和教育连在一起的，不可分离；一个弃婴的养父所获的权力与另一婴儿自然的父亲一样多。单纯的生孩子给与一个人对这个孩子的权力是非常少的；如果他此后不再关照孩子，那么他只不过是生了孩子的父亲而已。在世界上某些地方，一个女人同时拥有几个丈夫，或者在美洲一些地方，经常发生丈夫和妻子分离的事情，孩子留给母亲，跟随母亲，完全由母亲来照看，那么，这种父权力会变成什么样呢？如果父亲在孩子未成年的时候死亡，难道孩子不要在成年之前同样的服从他们的母亲吗？这种服从与父亲在世时对他的服从是一样的。难道有人会说，母亲对他的孩子拥有立法权？她能够制定持续有效的规则，成为永久性的责任，孩子们一辈子都依此来调整他们的财产并约束他们的自由？又或者她能够以死刑来强制它们得到遵守？因为这是社会管理者的恰当权力，对此父亲连这种权力的影子都没有。他对孩子的命令不过是暂时的，而且不涉及他们的生命或财产：它不过是对他们未成年时期的脆弱和缺陷的一种帮助，对他们教育的一种必要管教：虽然在孩子们没有死亡危险的时候，父亲可以随意处置他自己的财产，然而他的权力不能延及孩子们的生命或财产，不管是孩子们自己挣得还是他人赠与；当孩子们达到懂事的年龄拥有公民权的时候，也不能延及他们的自由。父亲的“帝国”到此便结束了，从此以后他对他儿子的自由的干涉，不超过其他人对他儿子的干涉程度：父权力与一种绝对的或永久的管辖权一定是非常遥远的，一个男子可以从这种权力中退出来，神圣的权力许可他离开父亲和母亲，而与他的妻子结合。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-10 11:20

§66. But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and command of his father, as the father himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else, and they are each under no other restraint, but that which is common to them both, whether it be the law of nature, or municipal law of their country; yet this freedom exempts not a son from that honour which he ought, by the law of God and nature, to pay his parents. God having made the parents instruments in his great design of continuing the race of mankind, and the occasions of life to their children，as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourish, preserve, and bring up their offspring; so he has laid on the children a perpetual obligation of honouring their parents, which containing in it an inward esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions, ties up the child from any thing that may ever injure or affront, disturb or endanger, the happiness or life of those from whom he received his; and engages him in all actions of defence, relief, assistance and comfort of those, by whose means he entered into being, and has been made capable of any enjoyments of life: from this obligation no state, no freedom can absolve children. But this is very far from giving parents a power of command over their children, or an authority to make laws and dispose as they please of their lives or liberties. It is one thing to owe honour, respect, gratitude and assistance; another to require an absolute obedience and submission. The honour due to parents, a monarch in his throne owes his mother; and yet this lessens not his authority, nor subjects him to her government.
§66. 但是虽然到了某个时间，孩子便无须服从他父亲的意志和命令，如同父亲无须服从任何他人的意志一样，他们除了需要服从共同的自然法或他们国家的自治法律之外便没有别的限制了；然而，这种自由并不能免除一个孩子对父亲应有的上帝与自然的法律所规定的尊重。上帝既已在祂那伟大的延续人类的计划中将父母作为媒介，作为孩子的生命来源，同时祂也负与他们喂养，保存和带大他们的孩子；因此，孩子便负有一种永久的尊重他们父母的责任，它包括了所有外在表达形式所表明的内心的敬重，约束孩子们在任何时候都不得伤害或冒犯，打搅或危及他们获取自身生命的来源——父母——的幸福或生命；并参与保护，救济，帮助和安慰给与他们生命从而使他们能够享受生命的父母的行动：没有一个国家，没有一种自由能够免除孩子们这种责任。但是这离赋与父母一种命令孩子的权力或一种制定法律可随意处置孩子的生命或自由的权力还很远。一种是给与尊重，感激和帮助；另一种是要求一种绝对的服从。尊重父母，一个王位上的君主也应当尊重他的父母；然而这并不减少他的权力，也不是叫他服从她的统治。
作者: feilian    时间: 2011-7-10 11:44

§66. But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and command of his father, as the father himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else, and ...
WIND 发表于 2011-7-10 11:20
翻译才是真正精读，细嚼，趣味大于功利
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-10 20:16

§67. The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government, which terminates with the minority of the child: and the honour due from a child, places in the parents a perpetual right to respect, reverence, support and compliance too, more or less, as the father's care, cost, and kindness in his education, has been more or less. This ends not with minority, but holds in all parts and conditions of a man's life. The want of distinguishing these two powers, viz. that which the father hath in the right of tuition, during minority, and the right of honour all his life, may perhaps have caused a great part of the mistakes about this matter: for to speak properly of them, the first of these is rather the privilege of children, and duty of parents, than any prerogative of paternal power. The nourishment and education of their children is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children's good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it: and though the power of commanding and chastising them go along with it, yet God hath woven into the principles of human nature such a tenderness for their off-spring, that there is little fear that parents should use their power with too much rigour; the excess is seldom on the severe side, the strong bias of nature drawing the other way. And therefore God almighty when he would express his gentle dealing with the Israelites, he tells them, that though he chastened them, he chastened them as a man chastens his son, Deut. viii. 5. i.e. with tenderness and affection, and kept them under no severer discipline than what was absolutely best for them, and had been less kindness to have slackened. This is that power to which children are commanded obedience, that the pains and care of their parents may not be increased, or ill rewarded.
§67．一个未成年人的服从交给了父亲一种暂时的统治权，它随同孩子的未成年期一起结束：孩子应有的尊重给与了父母一种永久的获得敬重，帮助和顺从其意志的权利，这种权利或多或少与父亲在孩子的教育中所花的关照，花费和善意相当。这种权利并不随着孩子的成年而结束，而是在一个人的有生之年的所有情况下都存在的。缺乏对这两种权力的区别，即父亲在孩子未成年年期行使教育权利中的权力与他有生之年获得尊重的权利，可能是引起这种事情的巨大误解的原因：更恰当的说，前者更多的是孩子的特殊权利和父母的责任，而不是父权力的特殊形式。喂养并教育他们的孩子是为了孩子的利益负与父母的职责，什么也不能免除父母操心这件事：虽然命令和责罚孩子的权力会与之相随，然而上帝既已将人性的原则诸如对后代的慈爱交织进来，那么便不用害怕父母会过于严格的使用这种权力；过分之处很少趋向严格的一端，强烈的自然倾向倒常常走向另一端。所以，全能的上帝当祂表示要温柔的对待以色列人的时候，祂告诉他们，虽然祂管教他们，却如同一个人管教儿子一样（申命计：8：5），是怀着慈爱之心的，对他们的管教绝对是最有好处的，纵容反倒不够善意。这便是要求孩子服从的权力，使他们的父母的辛劳和操心不至于增加，或得到错误的回报。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-11 08:27

§68. On the other side, honour and support, all that which gratitude requires to return for the benefits received by and from them, is the indispensable duty of the child, and the proper privilege of the parents. This is intended for the parents advantage, as the other is for the child's; though education, the parents duty, seems to have most power, because the ignorance and infirmities of childhood stand in need of restraint and correction; which is a visible exercise of rule, and a kind of dominion. And that duty which is comprehended in the word honour, requires less obedience, though the obligation be stronger on grown, than younger children: for who can think the command, Children obey your parents, requires in a man, that has children of his own, the same submission to his father, as it does in his yet young children to him; and that by this precept he were bound to obey all his father's commands, if, out of a conceit of authority, he should have the indiscretion to treat him still as a boy?
§68．另一方面，尊重和帮助，所有感激要求为自己获益于父母而有所回报的东西，是孩子必须的责任，也是父母恰当的特殊权利。这是为了父母的利益，如同另一种是为了孩子的利益；虽然教育，父母的责任，看起来拥有更多的权力，因为孩童的无知和脆弱需要限制和矫正；这是一种可见的规则的行使及一种统治权。而理解为尊重的那种责任，较少的要求服从，虽然这种责任对成年的孩子较未成年时更为强烈：因为谁能认为“孩子们，服从你们的父母”的命令是要求已有孩子的人服从于他的父亲像他尚未成年的孩子对自己的服从一样？如果他的父亲出于权力的狂妄，仍然将他视为一个孩童，那么依据这条诫律他必须服从他的父亲所有的命令吗？
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-11 09:40

§69. The first part then of paternal power, or rather duty, which is education, belongs so to the father, that it terminates at a certain season; when the business of education is over, it ceases of itself, and is also alienable before: for a man may put the tuition of his son in other hands; and he that has made his son an apprentice to another, has discharged him, during that time, of a great part of his obedience both to himself and to his mother. But all the duty of honour, the other part, remains never the less entire to them; nothing can cancel that: it is so inseparable from them both, that the father's authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right, nor can any man discharge his son from honouring her that bore him. But both these are very far from a power to make laws, and enforcing them with penalties, that may reach estate, liberty, limbs and life. The power of commanding ends with nonage; and though, after that, honour and respect, support and defence, and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a man to, for the highest benefits he is naturally capable of, be always due from a son to his parents; yet all this puts no scepter into the father's hand, no sovereign power of commanding. He has no dominion over his son's property, or actions; nor any right, that his will should prescribe to his son's in all things; however it may become his son in many things, not very inconvenient to him and his family, to pay a deference to it.
§69．因此，父权力或不如说责任的首要部分便是属于父亲的教育，这种教育到达一定的时间便终结了；当教育的事情结束之后，父权力也随之终止，而之前父权力也是可以转让的：因为一个人可以将教导儿子的责任委托给他人；一个使自己的儿子成为别人的学徒的人，便是在学徒期内，解除了大部分对自己和其母亲的服从。但是所有尊重父母的责任却不会减少仍全属于他们；什么也不能取消：它与他们都如此不可分离，以至于以父亲的权力也不能剥夺母亲的这种权利，任何人都不能解除儿子尊重生他的母亲的责任。但是，这两者距离制定法律并附带惩罚——可以延及财产，自由，肢体和生命——以强制其实施的权力都非常遥远。这种命令的权力随着成年的到来而终止；虽然从此以后，尊重，帮助与保护，以及感激能够责成一个人为他所自然得到的才能而做的一切，一个儿子对他的父亲总是应当的；然而所有这些并不是将权杖交给父亲，没有命令的统治权力。他对他的儿子的财产或行为没有统治权；他也没有权利依其意志规定儿子所有的事情；虽然在许多事情上，对于儿子和他的家庭不太方便，他也可能顺从父亲的意志。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-11 09:46

教育,其本质上是孩童的父母委托教师来进行,并支付一定的报酬.所以,教师是不能根据某种莫名其妙的东西来改造孩子的灵魂的.一个教师能够怎样对待学生,与一个身为父母的教师想怎样对待自己的孩子是一样的.
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-11 11:07

§70. A man may owe honour and respect to an ancient, or wise man; defence to his child or friend; relief and support to the distressed; and gratitude to a benefactor, to such a degree, that all he has, all he can do, cannot sufficiently pay it: but all these give no authority, no right to any one, of making laws over him from whom they are owing. And it is plain, all this is due not only to the bare title of father; not only because, as has been said, it is owing to the mother too; but because these obligations to parents, and the degrees of what is required of children, may be varied by the different care and kindness, trouble and expence, which is often employed upon one child more than another.
§70．一个人可以——尊重老人或有智慧的人；保护他的孩子或朋友；救济和帮助遭受痛苦的人；感激救助者——到这样一种程度，即尽其所有或尽其所能都不足以补偿：但是所有这些都没有给与应得这些的人一种针对他制定法律的权力或权利。很明白，这一切不仅仅是基于父亲的身份；不仅因为，如前所述，它也属于母亲；而且因为，这些属于父母的责任及孩子们所要求的程度，可能会由于有差异的关照和善意及麻烦和花费而有所不同，它们常常用在一个孩子的身上多于另一个孩子。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-11 11:43

§71. This shews the reason how it comes to pass, that parents in societies, where they themselves are subjects, retain a power over their children, and have as much right to their subjection, as those who are in the state of nature. Which could not possibly be, if all political power were only paternal, and that in truth they were one and the same thing: for then, all paternal power being in the prince, the subject could naturally have none of it. But these two powers, political and paternal, are so perfectly distinct and separate，are built upon so different foundations, and given to so different ends, that every subject that is a father, has as much a paternal power over his children, as the prince has over his: and every prince, that has parents, owes them as much filial duty and obedience, as the meanest of his subjects do to their's; and can therefore contain not any part or degree of that kind of dominion, which a prince or magistrate has over his subject.
§71．这就说明了如何会发生如下情况的原因，即身处社会中的父母，他们自己作为社会的臣民，仍然对他们的孩子保留了一种权力，他们要求孩子服从的权利与那些身处自然状态的人一样多。这就不可能说，所有的政治权力都只是父权力，它们实际上是一回事：因为这样的话，如果所有的父权力都置于君主手中，那么臣民自然就没有了。但是这两种权力——政治权力和父权力，如此的完全不同，基于不同的基础而建立，赋予了不同的目的，以至于每个人身为父亲的臣民，对其孩子的父权力与一个君主对他的孩子的父权力是一样多的：每个拥有父母的君主，对他们所应尽的作为儿女的责任和服从，与他最卑微的臣民是一样的；所以，父权力不能包含任何的那种统治权力，这是一个君主或社会管理者对他的臣民所拥有的权力。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-11 13:30

§72. Though the obligation on the parents to bring up their children, and the obligation on children to honour their parents, contain all the power on the one hand, and submission on the other, which are proper to this relation, yet there is another power ordinarily in the father, whereby he has a tie on the obedience of his children; which though it be common to him with other men, yet the occasions of shewing it, almost constantly happening to fathers in their private families, and the instances of it elsewhere being rare, and less taken notice of, it passes in the world for a part of paternal jurisdiction. And this is the power men generally have to bestow their estates on those who please them best; the possession of the father being the expectation and inheritance of the children, ordinarily in certain proportions, according to the law and custom of each country; yet it is commonly in the father's power to bestow it with a more sparing or liberal hand, according as the behaviour of this or that child hath comported with his will and humour.
§72．虽然父母抚养他们孩子的责任与孩子尊重他们父母的责任，一方完全拥有权力，另一方必须服从，对这种关系而言是恰当的，然而父亲通常还有另一种权力，由此而可以约束他的孩子的服从；虽然这种权力每个人都有，然而表现它的机会几乎只发生在父亲们的私人家庭中，而其它的场合很少有这样的例子，且很少被注意到，因而也被作为父权力的一部分。这是一种人们普遍所拥有的将其财产给与最讨他们喜欢的人的权力；父亲的财产，根据每个国家的法律和习俗，通常会以一定的比例成为孩子们的期待和继承物；然而又通常会以父亲的权力，根据这个或那个孩子的行为是否符合他的意志和性情而少给或多给。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-12 08:44

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-12 08:45 编辑

§73. This is no small tie on the obedience of children: and there being always annexed to the enjoyment of land, a submission to the government of the country, of which that land is a part; it has been commonly supposed, that a father could oblige his posterity to that government, of which he himself was a subject, and that his compact held them; whereas, it being only a necessary condition annexed to the land, and the inheritance of an estate which is under that government, reaches only those who will take it on that condition, and so is no natural tie or engagement, but a voluntary submission: for every man's children being by nature as free as himself, or any of his ancestors ever were, may, whilst they are in that freedom, choose what society they will join themselves to, what common-wealth they will put themselves under. But if they will enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they must take it on the same terms their ancestors had it, and submit to all the conditions annexed to such a possession. By this power indeed fathers oblige their children to obedience to themselves, even when they are past minority, and most commonly too subject them to this or that political power: but neither of these by any peculiar right of fatherhood, but by the reward they have in their hands to inforce and recompence such a compliance; and is no more power than what a French man has over an English man, who by the hopes of an estate he will leave him, will certainly have a strong tie on his obedience: and if, when it is left him, he will enjoy it, he must certainly take it upon the conditions annexed to the possession of land in that country where it lies, whether it be France or England.
§73. 这对孩子的服从不是一种无足轻重的约束：因为享用土地总是附加了对这片土地所属国家的政府的服从；所以通常假设父亲能够迫使他的后代服从他自己作为其臣民的政府，他的契约也能约束他们；然而这仅仅是土地——此政府之下的不动产继承物——附带的一个必要条件，涉及的只是那些在此条件下将接受遗产的人，所以这不是一种自然的约束或约定，而是一种自愿服从：因为每个人的孩子就其自然属性来说都是和他或他的任何一个祖先一样自由的，在他们处于那种自由之中时，都可以选择他们想加入的社会，以及自愿服从的共同体。但是如果他们想享用他们祖先的遗产，他们必须接受他们祖先已经接受的条件，服从这样的财产附带的所有条件。实际上，即使孩子们到了成年期，父亲们可以通过这种权力迫使他们服从自己，而且很通常的使他们服从这种或那种政治权力：但是这都不是基于任何父亲身份的特殊权利，而是通过他们手中所拥有的报酬来强制和奖赏这样的顺从；这并不比一个法国人对英国人所拥有的权力更多，这个英国人靠法国人将留给他一份不动产继承物的期待，当然可以强烈的约束他的服从：而在他留给他之后，如果他想享用，他必须接受所在国家土地财产所附带的条件，不管是在法国还是在英国。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-12 10:39

§74. To conclude then, tho' the father's power of commanding extends no farther than the minority of his children, and to a degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age; and tho' that honour and respect, and all that which the Latins called piety, which they indispensably owe to their parents all their life-time, and in all estates, with all that support and defence is due to them, gives the father no power of governing, i.e. making laws and enacting penalties on his children; though by all this he has no dominion over the property or actions of his son: yet it is obvious to conceive how easy it was, in the first ages of the world, and in places still, where the thinness of people gives families leave to separate into unpossessed quarters, and they have room to remove or plant themselves in yet vacant habitations, for the father of the family to become the prince of* it; he had been a ruler from the beginning of the infancy of his children: and since without some government it would be hard for them to live together, it was likeliest it should, by the express or tacit consent of the children when they were grown up, be in the father, where it seemed without any change barely to continue; when indeed nothing more was required to it, than the permitting the father to exercise alone, in his family, that executive power of the law of nature, which every free man naturally hath, and by that permission resigning up to him a monarchical power, whilst they remained in it. But that this was not by any paternal right, but only by the consent of his children, is evident from hence, that no body doubts, if a stranger, whom chance or business had brought to his family, had there killed any of his children, or committed any other fact, he might condemn and put him to death, or other-wise have punished him, as well as any of his children; which it was impossible he should do by virtue of any paternal authority over one who was not his child, but by virtue of that executive power of the law of nature, which, as a man, he had a right to: and he alone could punish him in his family, where the respect of his children had laid by the exercise of such a power, to give way to the dignity and authority they were willing should remain in him, above the rest of his family.
§74. 那么结论就是，虽然父亲命令的权力不能超越他的孩子的未成年期，并只能到适合那个年龄的管教的程度；虽然敬重及所有拉丁人所称的“piety”的东西，必须属于他们的父母在有生之年所享有，所有的不动产和所有他们应得的帮助和保护，并不给与父亲统治的权力，即针对孩子制定法律并实施惩罚；虽然靠这一切他对他儿子的财产或行为都没有统治权：然而很明显可以设想，在世界的初期，在某些地方人口稀少仍然容许家庭分离到未被占有的角落，他们可以迁移或定居到尚未有人定居的地方，这样家庭的父亲便很容易成为一个君主；他从他的孩子一来到这个世界开始便作为一个统治者：由于没有某种统治他们很难在一起生活，那么极可能的情况是，当孩子们长大的时候，基于他们明确表达或默认的同意，将统治权授予父亲，对此看起来没有任何改变，只是一切照常而已；实际上，对父亲的这种统治权力所要求的，不过是允许父亲在他的家庭中单独行使自然法的执行权力而已，这种权力每个自由的人都自然的拥有，只要他们仍然留在这个家庭之中，基于这种允许便转让给了父亲一种君主性的权力。但是这并不是基于任何父权利，而仅仅基于他的孩子们的同意，由此很明显，没有人会怀疑，如果一个外来人意外或因事来到他家，杀了他的一个孩子或犯了其它的罪行，他可以对他进行谴责并处死，或以其它方式惩罚他，对他自己的任何一个孩子也是这样；在这件事上，对于一个不是他孩子的人的惩罚，显然不可能依据任何父权力，而只能依据自然法的执行权力，这种权力，只要是一个人便有权利去做：而在他家中只有他能够惩罚他，是因为孩子们的敬重将这样一种权力的行使让给了父亲，他们愿意将那种尊严和权力交给父亲从而使他居于家庭中其余的人之上。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-12 12:44

§75. Thus it was easy, and almost natural for children, by a tacit, and scarce avoidable consent, to make way for the father's authority and government. They had been accustomed in their childhood to follow his direction, and to refer their little differences to him, and when they were men, who fitter to rule them? Their little properties, and less covetousness, seldom afforded greater controversies; and when any should arise, where could they have a fitter umpire than he, by whose care they had every one been sustained and brought up, and who had a tenderness for them all? It is no wonder that they made no distinction betwixt minority and full age; nor looked after one and twenty, or any other age that might make them the free disposers of themselves and fortunes, when they could have no desire to be out of their pupilage: the government they had been under, during it, continued still to be more their protection than restraint; and they could no where find a greater security to their peace, liberties, and fortunes, than in the rule of a father.
§75. 因此，孩子们很容易并且几乎是自然经由默许——几乎不可避免的同意——为父亲的权力和统治奠定了道路。他们在孩童时期习惯于遵循他的引导，以及将他们之间小小的争议提交到他那里，当他们成人之后，谁更适合来统治他们？他们之间少量的财产和小小的贪心很少会引起更大的争议；而当发生争执的时候，他们能够从哪里找到一位比用他的操心支持和抚养了每个人的父亲更适当的裁判人呢？谁对他们所有人拥有一种慈爱的情怀？因而他们不对未成年和成年作出区别便毫不稀奇了；当他们并不期待脱离被保护的状态，那么也不会去关注21岁或任何其它可作他们自身和财产的处置人的年龄：他们身处的统治，依然是保护多于限制；他们无法找到一个比父亲统治之下能够获得更大和平，自由和财富的保障的地方。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 08:27

§76. Thus the natural fathers of families, by an insensible change, became the politic monarchs of them too: and as they chanced to live long, and leave able and worthy heirs, for several successions, or otherwise; so they laid the foundations of hereditary, or elective kingdoms, under several constitutions and mannors, according as chance, contrivance, or occasions happened to mould them. But if princes have their titles in their fathers right, and it be a sufficient proof of the natural right of fathers to political authority, because they commonly were those in whose hands we find, de facto[in fact], the exercise of government: I say, if this argument be good, it will as strongly prove, that all princes, nay princes only, ought to be priests, since it is as certain, that in the beginning, the father of the family was priest, as that he was ruler in his own household.
§76. 这样，一些家庭自然的父亲，经过不知不觉的变化，也成了他们政治上的君主：而如果他们碰巧寿命长，留下了能干且值得尊重的后代，经过几代的继承，或别的方式；因而奠定了继承制或选举制王国——经由意外，发明或机会所塑造的若干种宪制形式——的基础。但是如果君主们是以其父权利而获得拥有君权的资格，所以足以证明父亲们拥有政治权力的自然权利，因为我们发现实际上他们通常是那些行使统治权力的人；我要说，如果这种说法不错的话，它也同样可以有力的证明，所有的君主，也只有君主才应当成为神父，因为最初，一家之父担当神父与他是一家的统治者是可以同样肯定的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 09:02

Chapter VII.
Of Political or Civil Society.
第七章 论政治社会或公民社会

§77. GOD having made man such a creature, that in his own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it. The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children; to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added: and though all these might, and commonly did meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family; each of these, or all together, came short of political society, as we shall see, if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these.
77.上帝将人造成为这样一种被造物，在他自己看来，独居不好，将他置于强烈的必要的责任，便利性和意愿之下，以驱使他进入社会，同时相应的给与他理解力和语言来继续并享受这一过程。最初的社会是丈夫与妻子之间，并由此诞生父母与孩子之间的社会；然后及时的添加了主人与仆人之间的社会：虽然所有这些关系可能且通常汇合在一起组成一个家庭，其间男主人或女主人拥有某种与家庭相称的统治权；然而，下文我们可以看到，这其中任何一种社会关系，或者所有的家庭关系，如果我们考虑到每种社会关系不同的目的，约束和边界的话，都不存在政治社会。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 09:42

§78. Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho' it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.
78.夫妻社会基于男人和女人之间的自愿契约组成；虽然它主要包含这样一种为着它主要的生殖目的而拥有彼此的身体的权利；然而，它也引出了互相支持和帮助，以及利益共享，这不仅是他们的关心和感情融合的必要，也是他们共同的后代所必需的，他们的孩子有权利要求他们抚养，直到他们能够独立生存为止。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 10:10

§79. For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves. This rule, which the infinite wise maker hath set to the works of his hands, we find the inferior creatures steadily obey. In those viviparous animals which feed on grass, the conjunction between male and female lasts no longer than the very act of copulation; because the teat of the dam being sufficient to nourish the young, till it be able to feed on grass, the male only begets, but concerns not himself for the female or young, to whose sustenance he can contribute nothing. But in beasts of prey the conjunction lasts longer: because the dam not being able well to subsist herself, and nourish her numerous off-spring by her own prey alone, a more laborious, as well as more dangerous way of living, than by feeding on grass, the assistance of the male is necessary to the maintenance of their common family, which cannot subsist till they are able to prey for themselves, but by the joint care of male and female. The same is to be observed in all birds, (except some domestic ones, where plenty of food excuses the cock from feeding, and taking care of the young brood) whose young needing food in the nest, the cock and hen continue mates, till the young are able to use their wing, and provide for themselves.
79.就男女结合的目的来说，并不仅仅是生殖，而是人类的延续；这种男女之间的结合即使在生殖之后仍应当持续，只要抚养和支持后代还有必要，他们就应当由生他们的人支持，直到他们能够改变这种状况独立生存为止。无限智慧的造物主所赋与祂亲手创造的作品的这条规则，我们发现那些低等生物也是固定的遵守的。在那些以草为食的胎生动物中，雌雄的结合在交配之后就不再持续了；因为母兽的奶足够抚养幼小，直到它能够吃草为止，雄性仅仅传种，但不再关心雌性和幼小，对它们的生计它没有贡献。但是在猎食动物中这种结合就要持续的长些：因为母兽仅仅依靠它自己的捕猎不能支撑它自己的生存并抚养众多的后代，谋生的道路比那些草食动物需要更多的劳动也存在更多的危险，雄性的帮助对于维持他们共同的家庭成为必要，若没有雌雄共同的努力捕猎，它们的家庭就不能够存在下去。同样的，在所有的鸟类中也可以看到这种情况，（除了某些家禽，由于足够的食物，雄性无需喂养关照幼小）它们的幼小在巢中需要食物，雌雄继续配合，直到幼小能够飞翔并独立生存为止。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 11:14

本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-13 11:19 编辑

§80. And herein I think lies the chief, if not the only reason, why the male and female in mankind are tied to a longer conjunction than other creatures, viz. because the female is capable of conceiving, and de facto[in fact] is commonly with child again, and brings forth too a new birth, long before the former is out of a dependency for support on his parents help, and able to shift for himself, and has all the assistance is due to him from his parents: whereby the father, who is bound to take care for those he hath begot, is under an obligation to continue in conjugal society with the same woman longer than other creatures, whose young being able to subsist of themselves, before the time of procreation returns again, the conjugal bond dissolves of itself, and they are at liberty, till Hymen at his usual anniversary season summons them again to chuse new mates. Wherein one cannot but admire the wisdom of the great Creator, who having given to man foresight, and an ability to lay up for the future, as well as to supply the present necessity, hath made it necessary, that society of man and wife should be more lasting, than of male and female amongst other creatures; that so their industry might be encouraged, and their interest better united, to make provision and lay up goods for their common issue, which uncertain mixture, or easy and frequent solutions of conjugal society would mightily disturb.
§80. 我想，这里存在着主要的理由——如果不是唯一的理由的话——为什么人类中男女结合在一起比其它动物更为长久，换言之，在之前的孩子尚不能脱离他父母的支持并独立生存之前，他从他的父母那里得到帮助，然而由于女人的怀孕能力，实际上通常又会怀孕并生出一个孩子来：于是，必须照料那些他所生的孩子的父亲，便置于一种责任之下来与同一个女人延续比其它动物更长的夫妻社会，而其它动物在生殖季节再度到来之前，一旦它们的幼小已经能够独立生存，它们的夫妻关系就自动解除了，直到通常的来年海门（Hymen, 古希腊神话中司婚姻的神）再度召唤它们选择新配偶之前，它们都处于自由状态。在此，人不能不赞美那伟大的造物主的智慧，祂给与了人类一种预见和能力，不但能满足眼前的需要也能够为将来做些准备，这就是使如下规则成为必要——夫妻社会应当比其它动物的配偶关系持续得更为长久；他们的劳作应当得到鼓励，他们的利益应当结合得更好，以为他们共同的后代提供和储备物品，而配偶社会中不确定的混杂关系，或者轻易和频繁改变的方式都将强烈的扰乱他们后代的生活。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 16:11

§81. But tho' these are ties upon mankind, which make the conjugal bonds more firm and lasting in man, than the other species of animals; yet it would give one reason to enquire, why this compact, where procreation and education are secured, and inheritance taken care for, may not be made determinable, either by consent, or at a certain time, or upon certain conditions, as well as any other voluntary compacts, there being no necessity in the nature of the thing, nor to the ends of it, that it should always be for life; I mean, to such as are under no restraint of any positive law, which ordains all such contracts to be perpetual.
§81. 不过，虽然这些都是加诸人类的约束，使人的夫妻关系比其它动物更加牢固和持久；然而，人们仍然有理由问，这种让生殖和教育得到保障并考虑到继承的契约，为什么不可以基于双方同意，或者在一确定的时间，或者在一确定的条件下终止，如同任何其它的自愿性契约一样？因为就其自身属性和目的来说，终身并非必要；我的意思是，对这类事情并没有任何肯定性的法律，来规定所有这类契约是终身制的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-13 16:25

§82. But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man's share, as the abler and the stronger. But this reaching but to the things of their common interest and property, leaves the wife in the full and free possession of what by contract is her peculiar right, and gives the husband no more power over her life than she has over his; the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch, that the wife has in many cases a liberty to separate from him, where natural right, or their contract allows it; whether that contract be made by themselves in the state of nature, or by the customs or laws of the country they live in; and the children upon such separation fall to the father or mother's lot, as such contract does determine.
§82. 但是丈夫与妻子，虽然他们只有一个共同的家庭所关心，然而却有不同的理解，不可避免的有时候会有不同的意志；所以，最后的决定，即统治，便有必要有所归属；它自然的落到了更能干更强壮的男人身上。但这只限于他们共同的利益和财产的事情，由契约完全留给妻子支配的财产则是她独有的权利，给与丈夫支配妻子生命的权力与妻子支配丈夫生命的权力相当；因为丈夫的权力与绝对君主的权力相去甚远，所以妻子在许多情况下拥有自由可以与丈夫分离，这是一种自然权利，或者为他们的契约所允许；他们的契约无论是在自然的状态中由他们自己订立，还是由他们所生活的国家的习俗或法律确定；他们分离之后孩子由父亲或母亲抚养，依他们的契约确定。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 09:37

§83. For all the ends of marriage being to be obtained under politic government, as well as in the state of nature, the civil magistrate could not abridge the right or power of either naturally necessary to those ends, viz. procreation and mutual support and assistance whilst they are together; but only decides any controversy that may arise between man and wife about them. If it were otherwise, and that absolute sovereignty and power of life and death naturally belonged to the husband, and were necessary to the society between man and wife, there could be no matrimony in any of those countries where the husband is allowed no such absolute authority. But the ends of matrimony requiring no such power in the husband, the condition of conjugal society put it not in him, it being not at all necessary to that state. Conjugal society could subsist and attain its ends without it; nay, community of goods, and the power over them, mutual assistance and maintenance, and other things belonging to conjugal society, might be varied and regulated by that contract which unites man and wife in that society, as far as may consist with procreation and the bringing up of children till they could shift for themselves; nothing being necessary to any society, that is not necessary to the ends for which it is made.
§83. 既然政治统治之下能达至的所有婚姻的目的，如同自然的状态，那么，公民的管理者便不能限制缩减任何一方为着那些目的所自然必要的权利或权力，即当他们在一起时生殖和互相支持帮助；而只能裁定夫妻间产生的有关这些权利权力的争议。否则，生死的绝对统治权力自然的属于丈夫，并成为夫妻社会中的必要条件，那么在那些丈夫并未允许有这样的绝对权力的国家就没有婚姻关系了。但是婚姻的目的并不需要丈夫有这样的权力，夫妻社会的条件并未将其赋与丈夫，在那种状态中这完全没有必要。没有这种权力夫妻社会也能够维持并达成它的目的；不仅如此，财产共有，处置财产的权力，互相帮助和支持，以及其它属于夫妻社会的事情，可以由将男女结合成夫妻社会的契约来变更和调整，只要与生殖并抚养孩子直到他们能够独立的目的相一致；凡是对结成任何社会的目的并无必要的，对于这种社会就没有必要。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 09:39

§84. The society betwixt parents and children, and the distinct rights and powers belonging respectively to them, I have treated of so largely, in the foregoing chapter, that I shall not here need to say any thing of it. And I think it is plain, that it is far different from a politic society.
§84. 父母与孩子之间的社会，以及分属双方的清晰的权利和权力，我已在前一章详加论述，在此无需重述。我认为很明白：它与政治社会相去甚远。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 09:56

§85. Master and servant are names as old as history, but given to those of far different condition; for a freeman makes himself a servant to another, by selling him, for a certain time, the service he undertakes to do, in exchange for wages he is to receive: and though this commonly puts him into the family of his master, and under the ordinary discipline thereof; yet it gives the master but a temporary power over him, and no greater than what is contained in the contract between them. But there is another sort of servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters. These men having, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with it their liberties, and lost their estates; and being in the state of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that state be considered as any part of civil society; the chief end whereof is the preservation of property.
§85. 主人与仆人的称谓与人类的历史一样古老，但是所指的关系却有很大的不同；就一个自由人而言，他成为另一个人的仆人，是通过出卖他自己为他人服务一段确定的时间，以换取一定的工资：虽然这通常将他置于他主人的家庭之中，并受通常的管教约束；然而这只是给与主人对仆人一种暂时性的权力，这种权力以不超过他们之间的契约所约定的为限。但是还有另外一种仆人，它有一个特有的称谓叫奴隶，他们在正当的战争中被俘，依自然的权利而臣服于他们的主人的绝对统治和专断权力。依我说，这些人既已丧失生命，也就随之丧失了自由和财产；既然处于没有任何财产的奴役状态，也就不能被认为是公民社会的一部分；公民社会的主要目的是财产的保护。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 10:12

§86. Let us therefore consider a master of a family with all these subordinate relations of wife, children, servants, and slaves, united under the domestic rule of a family; which, what resemblance soever it may have in its order, offices, and number too, with a little common-wealth, yet is very far from it, both in its constitution, power and end: or if it must be thought a monarchy, and the paterfamilias the absolute monarch in it, absolute monarchy will have but a very shattered and short power, when it is plain, by what has been said before, that the master of the family has a very distinct and differently limited power, both as to time and extent, over those several persons that are in it; for excepting the slave (and the family is as much a family, and his power as paterfamilias as great, whether there be any slaves in his family or no) he has no legislative power of life and death over any of them, and none too but what a mistress of a family may have as well as he. And he certainly can have no absolute power over the whole family, who has but a very limited one over every individual in it. But how a family, or any other society of men, differ from that which is properly political society, we shall best see, by considering wherein political society itself consists.
§86. 所以，让我们在家庭之内的规则之下来考虑家庭的主人与所有妻子，孩子，仆人和奴隶的从属关系；家庭，无论在它的秩序，各种职务以及人数方面多么的类似于一个小国家，然而在它的宪制，权力和目的方面与国家是相去甚远的：或者如果一定要把它想成一个君主国，家长是绝对君主的话，这个绝对君主国也仅仅拥有零碎和短暂的权力，因为根据前面的论述，很明白，家庭主人对其余人的有限权力，无论在时间上还是在范围上与君主的权力都是截然不同的；因为除了奴隶，他没有对任何人的生命和死亡拥有立法的权力，女主人也同样没有。主人对于家庭中的每个单独的人仅仅拥有非常有限的权力，他对整个家庭当然就没有绝对权力。但是一个家庭，或者任何其它的社会关系究竟如何与一个恰当的政治社会不同，我们在考虑政治社会本身构成时将会很好的看到。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 11:37

§87. Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that exclude him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it. And thus all private judgment of every particular member being excluded, the community comes to be umpire, by settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties; and by men having authority from the community, for the execution of those rules, decides all the differences that may happen between any members of that society concerning any matter of right; and punishes those offences which any member hath committed against the society, with such penalties as the law has established: whereby it is easy to discern, who are, and who are not, in political society together. Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another: but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge for himself, and executioner; which is, as I have before shewed it, the perfect state of nature.
§87. 如已经证明的，人生来拥有完全的自由，并不受控制的享有自然法的所有权利，与世界上的其他任何人或人群相等，从而自然的拥有一种权力，不仅可以保护他的所有物，即他的生命，自由和财产，免遭他人的伤害和企图；而且可以审判和惩罚他人破坏自然法的行为，让侵犯者罪有应得，在他认为极其重大的罪行当中甚至可以将其处死。但是，因为政治社会本身如果没有权力来保护财产，以及为保护财产而惩罚那种社会的侵犯者，它就不能形成也不能维持；所以政治社会只能是这样，在这种社会关系中，每个社会成员放弃这种自然的权力，除了他不能通过诉诸共同体所建立的法律得到保护的情况外，其余的情况全部授权共同体的机构来处理。所有每个人的私人审判这样排除之后，共同体担当了裁判者，用恒定不变的规则，无差别的对待所有的成员；通过由共同体授权的人来执行那些规则，去裁定这种社会中所有与权利相关的可能发生在任何成员之间的分歧；并且依建立的法律所规定的惩罚方式惩罚那些破坏这种社会的行为：由此，就很容易辨别谁处于政治社会之中，谁处于政治社会之外了。那些结合成一个共同体，拥有共同的既成法律和司法机构可以申诉和有权裁定成员之间的争议，并惩罚侵犯者，这样的人就与他人处于公民社会之中：但是那些没有共同的申诉，我的意思是在世上没有，他们就仍处于自然状态，在每个个体那里没有别人担当他的审判者和执行者；这种状态，如我已经说明的，就是完全的自然状态。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 12:51

§88. And thus the common-wealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by any one that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace) and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judgments of the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative. And herein we have the original of the legislative and executive power of civil society, which is to judge by standing laws, how far offences are to be punished, when committed within the common-wealth; and also to determine, by occasional judgments founded on the present circumstances of the fact, how far injuries from without are to be vindicated; and in both these to employ all the force of all the members, when there shall be need.
§88. 这样一来，共同体就拥有了一种权力来确定属于那个社会的成员的若干种罪行应受的惩罚，（这就是制定法律的权力）如同它拥有惩罚任何伤害它的成员的外部侵犯的权力，（这就是战争与和平的权力）所有这些都是为了尽可能的保护这种社会所有成员的财产。但是虽然每个进入公民社会并成为了某一共同体的成员的人，因此而放弃依他自己的私人审判并惩罚违反自然法的侵犯者的权力，然而对侵犯者的审判，在他能够向管理者申诉的情况下均已交给立法机构，同时他也授与了共同体一种权利可以使用他的力量去行使共同体的审判，无论什么时候需要他；实际上这些审判都是他自己的审判，它们由他自己或者他授权的代表决定。在这里，我们可以找到公民社会的立法和执行权力的来源，依据恒定的法律去审判属于共同体内部的侵犯行为应受多大程度的惩罚；以及在偶尔出现的外部侵犯的事件中，去决定应给侵犯者多大程度的惩罚；在这两方面如有必要，共同体都可使用所有成员的所有力量。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 16:57

§89. Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political, or civil society. And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government; or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made: for hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a common-wealth, by setting up a judge on earth, with authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the commonwealth; which judge is the legislative, or magistrates appointed by it. And where-ever there are any number of men, however associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, there they are still in the state of nature.
§89.所以，无论在哪里，任何数量的人这样结合成一个社会，以便放弃每个人所拥有的自然法的执行权力，然后转让给公共机构，这才是一个政治社会或曰公民社会。政治社会的形成方式可以是，无论何处，任何数量的处于自然状态的人，进入社会形成一个整体，一个政治体，处于一个最高政府统治之下；或者，任何一个人加入任何一个已经建立的政府：由此他授权给社会或社会的立法机构，根据社会公共利益的要求为他制定法律；对这些法律的执行，他自己的协助是应当的。通过在世上设置审判者，有权力去裁定所有的争议，并矫正共同体内任何成员可能受到的伤害，这样就使人们脱离自然状态而进入了共同体的状态之中；共同体的审判者就是立法机构，或由它所指定的管理者。而无论哪里无论多少人，不管他们怎样聚合在一起，若没有这样的裁定权力可申诉，他们就仍然处于自然状态之中。

§90. Hence it is evident, that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil-government at all: for the end of civil society, being to avoid, and remedy those inconveniences of the state of nature, which necessarily follow from every man's being judge in his own case, by setting up a known authority, to which every one of that society may appeal upon any injury received, or controversy that may arise, and which every one of the* society ought to obey; where-ever any persons are, who have not such an authority to appeal to, for the decision of any difference between them, there those persons are still in the state of nature; and so is every absolute prince, in respect of those who are under his dominion.
§90. 这样就很明显了，被一些人认为是世界上唯一的政府形式的绝对君主国，实际上与公民社会是不一致的，因而完全不是公民政府的形式：因为公民社会的目的，是为了避免和矫正自然状态的麻烦——每个人在他自己的事情中担当审判者所必然带来的——通过设置一种众所周知的权力，社会中的每个人都可以就他所受的伤害或他们之间可能发生的争议向它申诉，而社会中的每个人也应当服从这种权力；无论哪里，若人们没有这样的权力可申诉，来裁定他们之间所发生的分歧，那里的人们就仍然处于自然状态之中；而每个绝对君主统治下的人就是这样的自然状态。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 19:48

§91. For he being supposed to have all, both legislative and executive power in himself alone, there is no judge to be found, no appeal lies open to any one, who may fairly, and indifferently, and with authority decide, and from whose decision relief and redress may be expected of any injury or inconvenience, that may be suffered from the prince, or by his order: so that such a man, however entitled, Czar, or Grand Seignior, or how you please, is as much in the state of nature, with all under his dominion, as he is with the rest of mankind: for where-ever any two men are, who have no standing rule, and common judge to appeal to on earth, for the determination of controversies of right betwixt them, there they are still in the state of* nature, and under all the inconveniencies of it, with only this woeful difference to the subject, or rather slave of an absolute prince: that whereas, in the ordinary state of nature, he has a liberty to judge of his right, and according to the best of his power, to maintain it; now, whenever his property is invaded by the will and order of his monarch, he has not only no appeal, as those in society ought to have, but as if he were degraded from the common state of rational creatures, is denied a liberty to judge of, or to defend his right; and so is exposed to all the misery and inconveniencies, that a man can fear from one, who being in the unrestrained state of nature, is yet corrupted with flattery, and armed with power.
§91. 因为绝对君主被假定为一个人单独拥有立法和执行两种权力，这样就找不到审判者了，当有人遭受来自君主或他的命令所造成的伤害或麻烦之后，将不存在一个可能公正，中立和有权作出裁定的人可申诉，并期望这种裁定能够对伤害或麻烦给与救济和矫正：所以这样的人，无论给与什么样的称呼，Czar（中文译为沙皇。拜占廷或俄国皇帝。该词源自中世纪caesar一词，指最高统治者，尤指拜占廷皇帝。1453年拜占廷帝国亡，俄国君主成了仅存的东正教君主。俄罗斯东正教会认为俄国君主有可能成为东正教新的最高领袖。1547年，伊凡四世(雷帝)第一个加冕为沙皇。在理论上，沙皇拥有绝对权力，但实际上他和他的继承者都受到东正教会、贵族会议以及1497年、1550年和1649年公布的法典制约。1721年沙皇彼得一世废除沙皇之称，改而采用“全俄罗斯皇帝”这个头衔，但在民间，他和他的继承者继续被称为“沙皇”。//大英袖珍百科），或Grand Seignior（大领主）或任何你想用的，他都与他统治下的人及其余人类一样，仍处于自然状态：因为无论两个人在哪里，若在世上没有恒定的规则和共同的审判者可申诉，来裁定他们之间关于权利的争议，在那里他们就仍处于自然状态和自然状态所有的麻烦之中，一个绝对君主之下的臣民，或者更确切的说奴隶的悲惨之处仅在于——在通常的自然状态中，他拥有自由去审判他自己的权利，并尽其最大的力量去维护它的权利；而现在呢，当他的财产受到他君主的意志和命令的侵犯时，他不仅不能像正常社会应该有的那样申诉，而且好像被从理性动物降为无理性动物，丧失了审判或捍卫其权利的自由；这就是遭受所有苦难和麻烦的原因，一个人害怕另一个人，另一个人虽然处于不受限制的自然状态，仍然得到奉承道德败坏并掌管权力。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 20:02

§92. For he that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced of the contrary. He that would have been insolent and injurious in the woods of America, would not probably be much better in a throne; where perhaps learning and religion shall be found out to justify all that he shall do to his subjects, and the sword presently silence all those that dare question it: for what the protection of absolute monarchy is, what kind of fathers of their countries it makes princes to be and to what a degree of happiness and security it carries civil society, where this sort of government is grown to perfection, he that will look into the late relation of Ceylon, may easily see.
§92. 谁认为绝对权力可以让人们的血液得到净化，并纠正人类本性中卑鄙下贱的部分，他只要读一下当代或其它任何时代的历史，就会得到相反的结论。在美洲丛林中野蛮有害的人，大概在王座上也不会好多少；当他身居王位时，很可能会寻找学说和宗教来证明他对臣民所做的一切皆为正当，并且刀剑马上会让那些胆敢质疑他的人沉默下来：因为在这种政府完善的地方，绝对君主国保护什么，它会让君主成为怎样的一国之父，以及它带给公民社会多大程度上的幸福与安全，他只要去考察一下锡兰最近的情况，就很容易看到。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-14 20:11

ceylon:斯里兰卡1972年之前四百多年的英文名.
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-15 08:11

§93. In absolute monarchies indeed, as well as other governments of the world, the subjects have an appeal to the law, and judges to decide any controversies, and restrain any violence that may happen betwixt the subjects themselves, one amongst another. This every one thinks necessary, and believes he deserves to be thought a declared enemy to society and mankind, who should go about to take it away. But whether this be from a true love of mankind and society, and such a charity as we owe all one to another, there is reason to doubt: for this is no more than what every man, who loves his own power, profit, or greatness, may and naturally must do, keep those animals from hurting, or destroying one another, who labour and drudge only for his pleasure and advantage; and so are taken care of, not out of any love the master has for them, but love of himself, and the profit they bring him: for if it be asked, what security, what fence is there, in such a state, against the violence and oppression of this absolute ruler? the very question can scarce be borne. They are ready to tell you, that it deserves death only to ask after safety. Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be measures, laws and judges, for their mutual peace and security: but as for the ruler, he ought to be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has power to do more hurt and wrong, it is right when he does it. To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity. This is to think, that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions.
93.实际上，在绝对君主国中，如同世界上其它的政府一样，臣民也可向法律申诉，并有审判者去裁定任何争议，从而约束可能发生在臣民之间的任何暴行。这一点每个人都认为是必要的，并相信谁要取消它就要认为他应当被宣称为社会和人类的敌人。但是这是否出自人类和社会真正的爱护，这样的慈善是否如我们每个人彼此应有的，却有理由怀疑：因为它并没有超过任何一个热爱他自己的权力，利益或强大的人对那些为他的快乐和利益劳作和忙碌的牲畜不至于互相猎杀和伤害可能和自然会做的一切；它们之所以受到照料，并非出自主人对它们的爱护，而是源于主人对自己的爱以及它们带给他的利益：因为如果问，在那样的状态中有什么安全保障，有什么样的护栏可以避免这个绝对统治者的暴行和压迫？这样的问题将是愚蠢不堪的。他们会告诉你，只要问到安全它就该死。在臣民与臣民之间，为了他们彼此之间的和平和安全，他们会承认，需要一定的措施，法律和审判者：但是就统治者而言，他应当是绝对的，并居于所有这些条件之上；因为他有权力去犯更多的伤害和过错，他这样做是正当的。那么，当这个最强大的权力这样做的时候，你们如何保证免于被伤害的质疑，将立即成为内乱和反叛的声音：如同人们退出自然状态进入社会的时候，他们一致同意所有的人都应当受法律约束，而有一个除外，他仍然保留自然状态的所有自由，随着权力的增加，可以肆无忌惮。这不能不被认为：人们竟如此愚蠢，他们小心谨慎的避免臭貂或狐狸的侵害；却甘愿被狮子猎食，甚至还认为这样是安全的。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-15 09:14

§94. But whatever flatterers may talk to amuse people's understandings, it hinders not men from feeling; and when they perceive, that any man, in what station soever, is out of the bounds of the civil society which they are of, and that they have no appeal on earth against any harm, they may receive from him, they are apt to think themselves in the state of nature, in respect of him whom they find to be so; and to take care, as soon as they can, to have that safety and security in civil society, for which it was first instituted, and for which only they entered into it. And therefore, though perhaps at first, (as shall be shewed more at large hereafter in the following part of this discourse) some one good and excellent man having got a pre-eminency amongst the rest, had this deference paid to his goodness and virtue, as to a kind of natural authority, that the chief rule, with arbitration of their differences, by a tacit consent devolved into his hands, without any other caution, but the assurance they had of his uprightness and wisdom; yet when time, giving authority, and (as some men would persuade us) sacredness of customs, which the negligent, and unforeseeing innocence of the first ages began, had brought in successors of another stamp, the people finding their properties not secure under the government, as then it was, (whereas government has no other end but the preservation of * property) could never be safe nor at rest, nor think themselves in civil society, till the legislature was placed in collective bodies of men, call them senate, parliament, or what you please. By which means every single person became subject, equally with other the meanest men, to those laws, which he himself, as part of the legislative, had established; nor could any one, by his own authority，avoid the force of the law, when once made; nor by any pretence of superiority plead exemption, thereby to license his own, or the miscarriages of any of his dependents.** No man in civil society can be exempted from the laws of it: for if any man may do what he thinks fit, and there be no appeal on earth, for redress or security against any harm he shall do; I ask, whether he be not perfectly still in the state of nature, and so can be no part or member of that civil society; unless any one will say, the state of nature and civil society are one and the same thing, which I have never yet found any one so great a patron of anarchy as to affirm.
§94. 但是无论谄媚者如何消遣人们的理解力，它蒙蔽不了人们的感觉；当他们意识到有人不论处于什么位置，均不受他们所属的公民社会的约束，并且在这世上对遭受来自此人的伤害而无处申诉时，他们就会认为他们自己处于自然状态之中，并发现伤害他们的人也同样处于自然状态；并且他们会尽可能快的注意到这一点，在公民社会中建立起安全和保障，而安全和保障本来就是公民社会形成之初就应该建立的，这是他们进入公民社会唯一的目的。所以，虽然最初可能，（在接下来讨论的部分将更详细的说明）有一个道德良好才能杰出的人，在其余的人中享有卓越的声望，大家尊重他的良善和美德，将他视为一种自然的权力，从而将裁定他们之间的分歧这样一种主要统治权，以一种默许的形式转交到他的手中，他们没有考虑得更多，仅仅是信任他的诚实正直和智慧；然而随着时间的推移，由于最初时代不曾在意和毫无预见的天真无知所开始的授权，以及习俗的神圣（如有些人要说服我们的），也产生了另一种类型的继承者，这时人们发现他们处于这个政府之下的财产不再像以往那样安全，（然而除了财产的保护政府没有其它的目的）于是，他们不再放心，也不再认为他们处于公民社会之中，直到将立法权交给某个机构——元老院，国会或你想用的任何称谓。通过这种方式，每一个人，都将和其他最卑贱的人一样，成为那些法律的臣民，这些法律的制定，他自己也是作为立法机构的一部分；法律一旦制定，任何人都不能以他自己的权力而免受法律的约束；也不能以居于所有人之上为借口而提请豁免，从而允许他自己或他的下属的不正当行为。公民社会中的任何人都不能免除其法律的惩罚：因为如果任何人都可以去做他认为合适的事情，那么在这世上将无可申诉，来矫正或保证他不会造成任何伤害；我要问，是否他还完全处于自然状态，从而还不是那个公民社会的成员；除非有人说，自然状态和公民社会是一回事，然而我还没有找到如此伟大的无政府状态的辩护人这样肯定。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-15 10:57

Chapter VIII.
Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
第八章 论政治社会的开端

§95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.
§95. 如前所述，既然人们生来全都自由，平等和独立，那么，任何人未经其同意便不能将他置于这种状态之外，从而服从于他人的政治权力。任何人据以放弃他的自然自由并受公民社会约束的唯一方式，便是为了彼此舒适，安全与和平的生活在一起，同意加入或与他人联合组成共同体，以确保对其财产的享用，并对防御共同体之外的侵犯提供更大的保障。任何数量的人群都可以这样做，因为它并不伤害其余人的自由；其余的人仍然像以前一样处于自然状态的自由之中。当任何数量的人群如此同意组成一个共同体或一个政府的时候，他们便因此结合而组成了一个政治实体，其中的多数拥有制定法律和订立国际条约的权利。
作者: WIND    时间: 2011-7-22 16:10

§96. For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority: for that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in assemblies, impowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that positive law which impowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole.
§96. 因为，当任何数量的人，基于每个人的同意组成一个共同体的时候，他们便使得那个共同体成为了一个实体，拥有权力作为一个实体而行动，而这种行动只能依据多数的意志和裁决：因为任何共同体的行动，既然只能经由个体同意，并且必须作为一体一致行动；那么必然是由较大的力量来决定，这就是多数的同意：否则经由每个人的同意就不可能一致行动或作为一个共同体继续存在；所以每个人被这种同意约束，必须由多数来作决定。因此我们看到，在由肯定性的法律所授权行动的议会中，那种授予他们权力的肯定性法律并未规定任何人数，多数的行为被认为是整体的行为，从而理所当然的由多数来作决议，根据自然法和理性，多数拥有整体的权力。



欢迎光临 燕谈 (http://www.yantan.us/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0