CORE11-120 Lecture Week Eight
Locke on Natural Rights the Legitimacy of Government
1.Today we take a look at the political philosophy of Hobbes’ most important successor:
the English philosopher John Lock (1632-1704). John Locke is widely regarded as the greatest of all English philosophers. He did important work in epistemology (the study of knowledge), metaphysics and philosophy of language as well as political philosophy. He wrote two philosophical masterpieces: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) and Two Treatises on Government (published anonymously, also in 1689). The lecture today examines some of the main themes from the second (and more significant) of the Two Treatises of Government.
2.Locke makes for a fascinating contrast with Hobbes. The Second Treatise is often
interpreted as an attempted refutation of Hobbes’s Leviathan, however Locke and Hobbes also share common ground. Like Hobbes, Locke thinks that the legitimacy of government is based on a tacit or implied social contract. Like Hobbes, he also sees the social contract as a rational response to deficiencies within the state of nature. On many important details, however, Hobbes and Locke disagree.
3.Let us start with Locke’s characterization of the state of nature. Recall th at Hobbes
thought that the state of nature would be a state of war of all against all. Locke’s
view of the state of nature is much less dire. The reason for this is that Locke
considered humans to be naturally moral beings. We do not always or automatically act well, but we all have the capacity to understand what it is to act well. Humans have a moral conscience, and would have a conscience even in the state of nature.
Hobbes, by contrast, thought that our moral character is derived from civil society.
He thinks that decency and virtue are achievements of civilization, not features of unadorned human nature. According to Locke, however, we not only have a
conscience in the state of nature, we also have rights. Locke famously asserts the
existence of natural rights, and with them, natural law.
4.By natural law, Locke means just what Aquinas meant: it is a prescription of the way
we ought to act, which reflects God’s authority over us, and is something that we can discover for ourselves just because we are human and rational. This differs from
what Hobbes thought of as “Laws of Nature”: Hobbes’s laws of nature are rational principles of prudence (e.g. seek peace) and rational consistency (honour covenants).
Although Locke and Aquinas share a belief in natural law, they nonetheless had a different ideas about what is involved natural law. Recall that Aquinas says that
natural law enjoins us to seek good and avoid evil (and do so in ways that respect the fundamental goods of life, procreation, society, knowledge, etc.). According to
Locke, by contrast, natural law enjoins us to respect others’ natural rights. Locke
argues that we are everywhere and always in possession of these rights – rights that we possess naturally, simply in virtue of our humanity, and not in virtue of our
belonging to a particular society, or class, or club. This is the idea that would
eventually develop into the contemporary conception of human rights.
5.What are our natural rights, according to Locke? We have three: a right to life,
liberty, and property. Our right to life, according to Locke, is a right not to be killed or allowed to die when we could readily be saved. Our right to liberty is the right not to have our activities interfered with so long as we aren’t interferin g with the
activities of others. The right to property is the most interesting natural right. Even without any social arrangements to support private ownership, Locke thinks we can recognize when something is legitimately controlled and used by another (i.e. is truly their property). A right to property is the right to acquire things which are as yet
unowned (this is called original acquisition), a right to exchange things with others, a right to give things away, and a right not to have your property stolen or seized or
otherwise forced from you. I will have more to say about Locke on property below. 6.So there are natural rights in the state of nature, and people in the state of nature
would be aware of this (provided they are clear-headed enough). Along with natural rights come duties. If I have a right to life, then you have a duty to rescue me if you easily can. If I have a right to liberty, then you have a duty to leave me to do my own thing (providing doing my own thing doesn’t involve infringing on the liberty of
others). Of course, the mere fact that there are these rights and duties in the state of nature, and people are aware of this fact, doesn’t mean that people in the state of
nature will always respect them. But it does mean that they will respect them often enough to make life in the state of nature a much more peaceable and contented affair than the life envisaged by Hobbes. According to Locke, the state of nature is not
going to be a war of all against all.
7.But what sense can there be to the claim that the state of nature is realm of natural law
and natural right if there is no authority and no civil power to support them? Who will enforce natural rights if there is no civil authority? Locke answers that when a natural right is violated in the state of nature, then the injured party or their family
and friends will act as judge, jury and executioner. This minimal enforcement is
sufficient to evade the anarchic war of all against all that Hobbes imagined. But it is hardly satisfactory. For a start, as the victim or a friend of the victim, you are hardly in a position accurately determine any violation of natural law and justly respond to it.
Secondly, it will often enough be the case that you are not able to adequately enforce natural law: say, for example, that the perpetrator has run off with your goods and
you have not the means to track him down. A more objective, secure, and effective means of law enforcement than any available in the state of nature would be highly valuable, if we could secure it without too much cost. This is the value of civil society.
This is why it would make sense to get out of the condition of the state of nature and create a civil society.
8.Hobbes’s social contract was a covenant between all people i n a state of nature to
give the governance of their own lives up to a sovereign. In return, people get
security and access to all the goods of civilization that are dependent upon security.
Locke’s vision of the social contract is quite different. In Locke’s view, a proper
transition from the state of nature to a civil society would consist in two logically
distinct steps. First, a social contract is made; this is a free, uncoerced, agreement between people in the state of nature that they be governed by the principle of
majority rule. In the next step of the process, the majority will create (e.g. vote in) a governing body that will enact laws and enforce them. (This needn’t be a democratic parliament –it could be a monarchy if that’s what the majori ty wanted. Locke
recommends, however, that the branches of government – the legislature and the
executive – be separated, so there is an effective balance of power in government.) 9.The positive laws passed by this governing body must be consistent with natural law
if it is to remain a legitimate government. Either the laws regulate and protect natural rights – e.g. they encode adequate property rights – or they must be directed toward the benefit of citizens with the approval of the majority. Even in the latter case, the benefit of the majority cannot be won at the expense of the natural rights of the
minority. For example, a majority may be in favour of stripping all property from a minority religion (e.g. the Catholic Church in 17th century England). Even it the
majority approved of this course of action, or indeed wanted it desperately, such a law would not be just because it violates natural rights. Natural rights function in civil society as a means of avoiding tyranny of the majority and the abuse of minorities. 10.Because the legitimacy of government depends upon the consent of the majority and
the respect of natural rights, it is possible for governments to exist without legitimacy.
In these cases, says Locke, rebellion and revolution are just. (Note, this is the exact reverse of Hobbes’s view.) Locke’s views on the legitimacy of revolution were
highly influential. Indeed, much of Locke’s political philosophy exerted a great
influence on the founding fathers of the United States.
11.A government is legitimate only because everyone has tacitly agreed to abide by
majority rule, thinks Locke. (Notice, this is very different from saying that the
majority has agreed to abide by its own rule.) How can Locke say that we have given such consent? We show our consent by continuing to live in the civil society so
formed. But forced agreement is not true consent, so it must be that we aren’t forced to live in our society. And Locke thinks that, indeed, we aren’t forced to live in our society; we have the option of migrating, for example. And because the state of
nature is not the disaster Hobbes imagined it to be, we always have the option of
opting out. Any legitimate government must allow its citizens some possibility of opting out. Otherwise it is not operating under genuine consent of its people.
12.Recall that one of our three natural rights, according to Locke, is the right to property.
Indeed he thinks that one of the chief virtues of the move to civil society is that it is very difficult in a state of nature to adequately protect this right. But how can there be such a thing as property before there exists any of the institutions that support
private ownership: e.g. laws of contract, laws of inheritance, a monetary system, and so on? Locke needs a theory about what property is and how it comes about, one that makes the facts of property ownership independent of institutional support.
13.How do you ever acquire property? You might be given it. But then, how did the
gift-giver acquire the property to give? You might earn it or trade for it. But how did your employer or trading partner own the means to provide wages or the goods to trade with? Perhaps they were given them, earned them, or traded for them. But we can’t go on asking these questions, forever. We need a theory about the first origins of property. How did anyone every acquire property for the very first time? To a first approximation, Locke’s theory is this: something becomes property for the very first time if it is not owned by anybody and you mix your labour with it. To mix your labour with something is work to improve it or make it more useable. For example, if you are wandering through a forest – one that is not owned by anyone – and you pick up a stick, you can’t be said to own the stick. It isn’t your stick, yet. It’s just a stick up picked up. But say you whittle away at it, making it into a carving of a snake. It now becomes your snake-carving. Consider another example. Say you encounter a pear tree – unowned by anyone. If you go to the trouble of picking the pears and placing them in your bag, you now own the pears. You have changed them from relatively inaccessible fruit, to picked fruit, fruit that is ready to eat. So the pears are now yours. (The pear tree isn’t yours because you haven’t done anything to improve it.)
14.There are two further conditions on original acquisition. First, you must not acquire
so much that it spoils or so much that you can’t make proper use of it. Second, you must leave enough and as good behind you. Say there is only one pear tree in the region and pears are popular. You don’t own the pears if you pick all of them, or even most of them. Nor do you own the pears if you only pick the best and juiciest of them, leaving behind only over-ripe or worm infested pears. You might claim
ownership, of course, by you do not own the pears by natural right; you do not have a natural right to the pears you have taken in this way, according to Locke.
15.Locke’s theory of property is an important el ement of his political philosophy. It
constitutes is the most important reason to create a civil society. Whereas Hobbes thinks of civil society as, above all else, the protector of our security, Locke thinks of civil society as, above all else, the protector of our property.
再评洛克财产权劳动理论 摘要：尽管洛克财产权劳动理论给作为一种私权的知识产权的合理性提供了一个哲理化的解释，但由于未界定劳动的内涵与外延，未准确处理劳动与资本等生产要素在配置财产权时的关系、劳动与劳动成果异化的关系、效率与公平的关系，以及时代限制等原因，因此在解释现行知识产权制度的合理性时，还存在种种缺陷。知识产权作为一种私权及与之配套的法律制度的合理性取决于劳动、人格、经济学上的效率以及法理学上的公平等各种因素。 关键词：财产权劳动理论，知识产权的合理性，劳动，效率与公平 引言 易继明博士在2000年第3期《法学研究》上撰文评财产权劳动学说》，文章认为，洛克的财产权劳动学说不但给有形财产权的合理性提供了一个解释，而且也完美地解释了知识产权的合理性。2003年11月，在中南财经政法大学法学院民商法典研究所发起的学术沙龙上，①易继明博士又将该文提交给沙龙讨论，并且发表了同样的观点。在中国物权法、民法典的制定被抄得非常热闹的21世纪初，追问整个财产权的权源，当然具有非常重要的现实意义。笔者整体上赞成易继明博士将劳动作为社会的核心和基础价值、作为解释财产权合理性的一个重要因素的观点，也赞成易继明博士将财产权作为自由的根本保障，并以此反对财产权过分社会化的观点。但是，笔者并不赞成易继明博士认为洛克财产权劳动理论也为知识产权的合理性提供了一个完美的解释的观点。下面，笔者将紧紧结合洛克财产权劳动学说，指出该学说在解释知识产权合理性时的意义与缺陷，并分析易继明博士观点的粗糙和不足之处，最后，将从法理学的角度分析现行知识产权制度设计对洛克财产权劳动理论进行修正的根本原因。 一、洛克财产权劳动理论解释知识产权合理性的意义② 为了批驳菲尔麦③“君权神授”和“王位世袭”的极端保皇主义论调，洛克因袭了自格老秀斯等人以来自然法的传统，提出了自己的自然法理论，并在此基础上建立了自己的社会、国家与法律学说。当洛克将其自然法理论系统化和理论化，并运用于财产权的分析时，创立了对后世影响深远的财产权劳动理论。洛克认为，在和平、自由、平等的自然状态下，“有一种为人人所应遵守的自然法对其起着支配作用；而理性，也就是自然法，教导着有意遵从理性的全人类：人们既然都是平等和独立的，任何人都不得侵犯他人的生命、健康、自由或财产”。看见，在洛克的自然法学说中，财产权是一种与生俱来的天赋权利，任何社会及其法律都必须为其提供保护，政治社会及其法律的合法性也就在于此。 洛克认为，财产权虽然是一种天赋权利，但在自然状态下，上帝只是把地上的一切给人类共有，而没有人原来就具有排斥其余人类的私人所有权。但是，地上的一切既是上帝给人类使用的，就必须拨归私用，才能对个人有所用处或好处。如何拨归私用呢？洛克认为，不是其他任何方式，而是劳动使人们对原来处于共有状态的一切拨归了私用，从而产生了私人所有权。因为“劳动使它们同公共的东西有所区别，劳动在万物之母的自然所已完成的作业上面加上一些东西，这样，它们就成为他的私有的权利了。……我的劳动使它们脱离原来所处的共同状态，确定了我对于它们的财产权。”洛克在完成自然权利到身体所有权转变的基础上，通过劳动，又完成了身体所有权到外界所有权的转变，从而使外界的万物都成为所有权的对象。在完成这个转变的同时，洛克也清楚地向我们展示了他的财产权劳动理论的全部内涵：1.上帝将天堂留给了自己，而将地上的一切赐给了全人类所共有；2.每一个人对他自己的人身拥有所有权；3.每一个人的劳动只属于他自己；4.当人们将他的劳动与处于共有状态的某个东西混合在一起的时候，他就取得了该东西的所有权； ①此次沙龙的所有文章已经上载到中南财经政法大学法学院创办的私法上，有兴趣的学者可
肯尼迪总统就职演说（1961年1月20日） Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy January 20, 1961 Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, Reverend Clergy, fellow citizens: 约翰逊副总统、议长先生、首席大法官先生、艾森豪威尔总统、尼克松副总统、杜鲁门总统、尊敬的牧师、同胞们： We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom, symbolizing an end as well as a beginning, signifying renewal as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago. 我们今天所看到的，并非是某一党派的胜利，而是自由的庆典。它象征着结束，亦象征着开始；意味着更新，亦意味着变化。因为我已在你们及万能的上帝面前，依着我们先辈175年前写下的誓言宣誓。 The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God. 世界已然今非昔比，因为人类手中已经掌握了巨大的力量，既可以用来消除各种形式的贫困，亦可用以毁灭人类社会。然而，我们先辈曾为之战斗的那些革命性的信念还依然在世界上受人争议——那就是，每个人享有的各项权利决非来自国家政权的慷慨赐予，而是出自上帝之手。 We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage -- and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. 今天，我们不敢有忘，我们乃是那第一次革命的后裔。此时，让这个声音从这里同时向我们的朋友和敌人传达：火炬现已传递到新一代美国人手中——他们生于本世纪，既经受过战火的锤炼，又经历过艰难严峻的和平岁月的考验。他们深为我们古老的遗产所自豪——决不愿目睹或听任诸项人权受到无形的侵蚀，这些权利不仅为这个国家始终信守不渝，亦是我们正在国内和世界上誓死捍卫的东西。 Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
洛克财产权理论分析 The Analysis of the Locke’s Theory of Property 论文作者：张斌 专业：法学 指导老师：陈云中 完成时间： 2016年04月10日
摘要 洛克的财产权理论，作为其经典作《政府论》中的重要组成部分之一，已为诸多学者评述探讨数百年。本文在诸多学者的相关论述的基础上，结合马克思、凯尔森等人的学说理论，试图大致勾勒出洛克理论的建构与局限。 Abstract As an important part of Locke’s classic work 《Two Treatises of Government》, his theory of property has been investigated by lots of scholars for hundred years. Based on the discussion of these scholars and the theory of Marx or Kelsen, this article try to sketch out the construction and limitations of Locke’s theory. 关键词：洛克；财产权；劳动；局限 Keyword: Locke；property；labour；limitation
目录 一、前言 (4) 二、财产：起源与发展 (4) （一）、上帝的意旨 (4) 1、共有的释义 (5) 2、理性 (5) 3、劳动 (5) 4、无限的资源 (5) （二）、神谕的限制 (6) 三、局促 (7) （一）、法律与权利的关系 (7) （二）、本质：旧有思维下的新式描述 (8) 四、结语 (10) 参考文献 (11)
肯尼迪登演讲 W e c h o o s e t o g o t o t h e m o o n英文原文 集团文件版本号：（M928-T898-M248-WU2669-I2896-DQ586-M1988）
President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and g e n t l e m e n: I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion. We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a state noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds. Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation's own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.
约翰.洛克《教育漫话》读后感 歌德说“读一本好书就是和一位高尚的人在说话。”读《教育漫话》之后 才对这句话有深刻认识。读了这本书，就像聆听了一次智者的教诲。作者用朴 实的语言，像拉家常一样告诉我们一些实用的教育真理，看似琐碎的小事实际 关乎孩子一生的命运。 洛克从体育、德育、智育三方面论述了自己的教育观点，内容给人感觉很 与众不同，非常具体实在。 一、“健康之精神寓于健康之身体”这句话是很有远见的。作者认为应把 培养强健的体魄放在教育的首位，并对孩童的身体提出一些具体要求:儿童要多过户外生活，接受空气、日光和水的锻炼;生活要有规律；饮食要清淡；睡眠要充分；药物要少用,要多运动，等等。我们老师和家长当然明白身体健康的重要性。可当面临应该将孩子有限的时间用于运动还是学习时，绝大多数大人会选择后者。孩子们没有足够的时间也没有充分的空间玩耍、锻炼，长时间面对课本、电视、电脑让他们忽略了大自然的存在，对生活环境的漠视。为什么现在 越来越多的孩子视力近视？为什么中国儿童的身体素质不是在提高而是下降？ 孩童时期，身心的健康和知识的学习，到底孰轻孰重？ 二、“教育上难于做到而又具有价值的一部分目标是德行。”幼儿的可塑 性是最强的，他们就像一张白纸或一块蜡，是可以随心所欲地做成什么式样的。每个班都有一两个让老师、家长都头疼的孩子，一般的说教似乎对这些孩子毫 无作用，造成这些孩子学习困难、表现不好的最根本原因，很多是因为从小没 养成良好的生活、学习习惯。洛克在书中提到的观点中有两点我非常赞同。1、在各种教导儿童及培养他们礼貌的方法中，最简明、最容易而又最有效的办法 是把他们应该做或是不该做的事情的榜样放在他们面前。2、当对学生进行说理时，举止应该温和，即使惩罚他们，态度也要镇定，要使他们觉得你的作为是 合理的，对于他们是有益的，而且是必要的。有时学生的错误会让老师生气甚
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Good morning,everyone.How much do you know about John F.Kennedy?Today I will give an introduction about him.There are five parts of the report,personal details;military service;political career;assassination and influence. The first part is his personal details. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born on May29,1917,in suburban Brookline, Massachusetts.His father is Joseph P.Kennedy S.r and mother is Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy.He had an elder brother,Joseph,two younger brothers,Robert and Edward,and five younger sisters,Rosemary,Kathleen,Eunice,Patricia,and Jean. In September1936,Kennedy enrolled at Harvard College and his application essay stated:"I feel that Harvard can give me a better background and a better liberal education than any other universities.I have always wanted to go there,as I have felt that it is not just another college,but is a university with something definite to offer." In1940,he graduated from Harvard. He got married with Jacqueline on September12,1953.Their first child was a stillborn baby.The second child Caroline is the only surviving member of JFK's immediate family.John Jr.,was born in late November1960,17days after his father was elected.Patrick was the last child and lived only two days. The second part is his military service. On September24,1941,Kennedy joined the United States Naval Reserve. In1943,he spotted a Japanese destroyer and attempted to turn to attack.But they were injured.Despite injuries,he led survivors to safety after his PT boat was rammed and sunk by Japanese destroyer. Kennedy’s courage and determination in this incident made him the headline of major newspapers and he has been awarded many medals,such as the Navy and Marine Corps Medal;Purple Heart Medal;American Defense Service Medal;American Campaign Medal;Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with three bronze stars;and the World War II Victory Medal. Shortly after the war ended,his political career began.
经济研究导刊 ECONOMIC RESEARCH GUIDE 总第131期2011年第21期Serial No .131 No .21，2011约翰·洛克是17世纪英国资产阶级革命时期著名的哲学家和政治思想家、自由主义的奠基人、古典自然法学派的杰出代表之一。洛克的一生见证了整个英国资产阶级革命的全过程，他的政治思想是为通过1688年的妥协而奠定的议会制资产阶级国家辩护的。洛克生活的17世纪，“君权神授论” 还占有统治地位。在这个时期，国王以上帝将世界给予亚当和他的继承人为理由，对臣民巧取豪夺，使臣民的人身和财产都无保障。在英国革命的前后，资产阶级和新贵族所处的正是这种一种状况。 为了批驳“君权神授”以及“王位世袭”等论调，洛克继承了格老秀斯、霍布斯等人以来的自然法学派传统，并借助自然状态和契约论学说，将其自然权利学说系统化和理论化。洛克的财产权理论也正是在从事这种批判过程中提出来的。 一、洛克财产所有权理论的自然状态基础 “光荣革命”前的英国，社会阶级矛盾空前尖锐复杂，社会政治思想领域的斗争纷呈激烈。保王党人沿用中世纪神权理论的陈年老调，大肆宣扬“君权神授”、“王权世袭”是不可动摇的真理，为复辟王朝的合理性进行辩解。洛克在其政治哲学名著《政府论》一书中，系统地批判了这些陈腐的观念，认为父权理论和君权神授这些形而上学的政治观念超出了人类的经验和理性的能力，宣称自己具有这种知识即意味着宣称自己取得了超出人类心灵能力的成就。 他从自然状态出发，分析了国家的起源，划定了政府权力与公民权利之间的界限，明确了政府的目的是保护人民的生命、自由和财产，而财产权利是一切权利的基础和核心。 与同时代的很多政治思想家一样，洛克在论述自己的政治哲学理论之前，首先在逻辑上假设了一个自然状态，这是 一个在人类进入文明社会以前就已经存在自然状态。 在洛克之前，英国哲学家霍布斯就曾经从自然状态出发，系统论述过自己的政治哲学思想。霍布斯把哲学建立在一种自然资源的绝对匮乏之上，他认为在所谓的原始状态下，自然界能够提供给人的资源是极其有限的。因此，“人与 人像狼与狼一样” [1] 的自然状态便不可避免。相比之下，洛克的观点与之不同，他提出了一种自然资源较为充裕的假设，他认为在前社会的自然状态下，各种各样的自然资源基本上是充足的，可以满足人的各种需要，人们有关建立政治社会的契约更多的是基于人的天赋权利。洛克的财产权理论也是建立在这种自然状态概念之上的。 洛克在《政府论》下篇第二章开篇写道：“为了正确地解明政治权力并追溯它的起源，我们必须探究人类原来自然地处于什么状态。那是一种完备无缺的自由状态，人们在自然法的范围内按照他们认为合适的方式，决定自己的行为和处理自己的财产和人身，而无须得到任何人的许可或听命于任 何人的意志”[2] 。可见在洛克那里，自然状态是一个完全自由 且平等的生活状态。自然状态尽管是一种自由状态，但却不是一种放任状态，在那里存在着约束每个人的自然法。人的自然自由受制于并且仅受制于自然法，除了自然法以外不受任何其他的限制。 洛克认为，他的自然学说是一种奇怪且新颖的学说[2]。他区分了战争状态和自然状态。他写道：“尽管有些人将自然状态和战争状态混为一谈，但它们之间的区别，恰如和平、善意、互助和安全状态与敌对、恶意、暴力和相互残杀的状态之间的区别那样遥远。人们受理性支配生活在一起，不存在拥有对他们进行裁判的权力的人间的共同尊长。当对另一个人的人身用强力或表示企图使用强力，而又不存在可以诉请救 收稿日期：2011-04-29 作者简介：陈留彪（1982-），男，河南叶县人，教师，从事马克思主义哲学与西方政治哲学研究。 洛克财产权理论的内在逻辑 陈留彪 （平顶山学院，河南平顶山467000） 摘要：财产权理论在洛克的政治哲学体系中占有十分重要的地位。洛克认为，在自然状态下，一切物品都为全人类共同所有，正是劳动的因素导致了财产由“公有”转化为“私有”。同时，基于其天赋权利的学说，洛克倡导一种权利本位，从而成为财产个人主义、所有权绝对思想的基石；其劳动价值学说更是为财产权找到了合法性基础。洛克的财产权劳动理论对后世在建构财产权理论基础、解释传统财产权的合理性方面依旧具有重大的价值。研究洛克的财产思想对理解其整个政治学说具有重要的现实意义。 关键词：财产权；天赋人权；自然状态；财产权劳动理论中图分类号：F03 文献标志码：A 文章编号：1673-291X （2011）21-0011-03 11——
CORE11-120 Lecture Week Eight Locke on Natural Rights the Legitimacy of Government 1.Today we take a look at the political philosophy of Hobbes’ most important successor: the English philosopher John Lock (1632-1704). John Locke is widely regarded as the greatest of all English philosophers. He did important work in epistemology (the study of knowledge), metaphysics and philosophy of language as well as political philosophy. He wrote two philosophical masterpieces: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) and Two Treatises on Government (published anonymously, also in 1689). The lecture today examines some of the main themes from the second (and more significant) of the Two Treatises of Government. 2.Locke makes for a fascinating contrast with Hobbes. The Second Treatise is often interpreted as an attempted refutation of Hobbes’s Leviathan, however Locke and Hobbes also share common ground. Like Hobbes, Locke thinks that the legitimacy of government is based on a tacit or implied social contract. Like Hobbes, he also sees the social contract as a rational response to deficiencies within the state of nature. On many important details, however, Hobbes and Locke disagree. 3.Let us start with Locke’s characterization of the state of nature. Recall th at Hobbes thought that the state of nature would be a state of war of all against all. Locke’s view of the state of nature is much less dire. The reason for this is that Locke considered humans to be naturally moral beings. We do not always or automatically act well, but we all have the capacity to understand what it is to act well. Humans have a moral conscience, and would have a conscience even in the state of nature. Hobbes, by contrast, thought that our moral character is derived from civil society. He thinks that decency and virtue are achievements of civilization, not features of unadorned human nature. According to Locke, however, we not only have a conscience in the state of nature, we also have rights. Locke famously asserts the existence of natural rights, and with them, natural law. 4.By natural law, Locke means just what Aquinas meant: it is a prescription of the way we ought to act, which reflects God’s authority over us, and is something that we can discover for ourselves just because we are human and rational. This differs from what Hobbes thought of as “Laws of Nature”: Hobbes’s laws of nature are rational principles of prudence (e.g. seek peace) and rational consistency (honour covenants). Although Locke and Aquinas share a belief in natural law, they nonetheless had a different ideas about what is involved natural law. Recall that Aquinas says that natural law enjoins us to seek good and avoid evil (and do so in ways that respect the fundamental goods of life, procreation, society, knowledge, etc.). According to Locke, by contrast, natural law enjoins us to respect others’ natural rights. Locke argues that we are everywhere and always in possession of these rights – rights that we possess naturally, simply in virtue of our humanity, and not in virtue of our belonging to a particular society, or class, or club. This is the idea that would eventually develop into the contemporary conception of human rights.
肯尼迪总统就职演说英文版-英语演讲稿 friday, january 20, 1961 vice president johnson, mr. speaker, mr. chief justice, president eisenhower, vice president nixon, president truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedomsymbolizing an end, as well as a beginningsignifying renewal, as well as change. for i have sworn i before you and almighty god the same solemn oath our forebears l prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. the world is very different now. for man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. and yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globethe belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of god. we dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of americansborn in this century, tempered by war,
1.从最初占有的角度讲,自然界的所有物品都归人类所共有 人类一出生即享有生存的权利,因而可以享用肉食和饮料以及维持他们的生存的自然供应物品，土地和其中的一切,都是给人们用来维持他们的基本生存和舒适生活的。自然生产的果实和它所养活的兽类,既是土地自然自发地生长的,就都归人类所共有 2.从私有产生的角度讲,自然共有物的某些部分成为人们的私有财产,并不需要经过全体世人的明确协议 人类所共有的东西,既然是供给人类使用的,那么就必须通过分给个人使用来实现。如果任何个人都不把某种共有的东西变为己有,使之成为自己的一部分,结果将是自然状态的任何东西都不可能为人类所享有,从而人类也就无法存在下去了，所以这种私有化是全体世人所默示而不需要经过明确协议的。 从共有的东西中取出任何一部分并使它脱离自然所安排的状态，也就形成了财产权。3.从个人私有的角度讲,个人通过劳动使自然共有物转变为私人财产 每个人对他自己的人身享有所有权，也就是人身权，同时每个人的人身权是不可转让的。劳动作为个人支配自己身体和行动的产物,理所应当的为这一个体所有，所以任何人对自己身体所从事的劳动具有所有权，自然状态的任何东西为一切人所共有，只要有人对共有的物施加劳动,使之脱离自然所安置的状态，他对该劳动产品也具有所有权，那就是他的财产。 因此,在洛克看来个人正是通过在自然共有物中渗入自己的劳动才确立起了对分离物的私人财产权的。 4.从私有程度上讲,个人通过劳动把处于自然状态中的东西变为私有的东西是有条件的 洛克认为财产的获取不是无条件的,而是存在两个条件:第一,“还留有足够的同样好的东西给其他人所共有”;第二,“取得的财产数量以够享用为限度” 对于第一个条件,在很长一段时期内,世界上自然物资丰富，消费者很少，所以有给别人留出足够的同样好的东西的可能，这时，你和别人对你确定的财产发生争执或纠纷的机会减少。 对于第二个条件,洛克主张把人类共有变为个人私有应有一定限度,这就是以供人们享用为度，满足生存，因为人们对自然,状态下的任何东西的共有正是出于每个人都有生存的权利，超过此限度就不是他们的应得的,因而也就不是正当的，而人类理性和自我控制也使之可能。 5.从私有效果上讲,私人财产不仅不减少反而增加了人类的共同积累 洛克认为:“一个人基于他的劳动把土地划归私用,并不减少而是增加了人类的共同积累。因为一英亩被圈用和耕种的土地所能生产的供应人类生活的产品,将比一英亩同样肥沃而共有人任其荒芜不治的土地要收获更多。”所以从全人类所有财富总和的角度看,私人财产的出现不仅不会减少人类的总财富量,反而会使得财产总量增加。 在这里,劳动所产生的财产权是由人们对自己人身的所有权推导出来的,每个人对他自己的人身享有一种所有权,除他以外任何人都没有这种权利。如果他在自然所提供的那个东西所处的状态中,掺进他自己无可争辩的所有物———劳动,那么对于这一被掺入了他的劳动的自然物,除他以外就没有人能够享有权利,因而它就成了他的财产。
美国第35任总统肯尼迪就职演说中英文(全文) John F. Kennedy INAUGURAL ADDRESS FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1961 Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom--symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning--signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn I before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears l prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge--and more. To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do--for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder. To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly
肯尼迪就职演讲的翻译赏析 演讲者简介： 约翰·肯尼迪是一位战争英雄，普利策奖获得者，五十年代大部分时间里的参议员。1960年的11月，年仅43岁的他成为美国历史选择产生的最年轻的总统。1963年11月22日他在德克萨斯州的达拉斯遇刺身亡，是美国历史上第四位死于暗杀者的子弹的总统。 话说我正埋头于我们“高级英语”课程的复习，忽然发现老师幻灯片里的翻译还 不错，对长句的处理不错，也较有文采，挑选一部分与大家分享。 Let the word go forth, from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage and unwilling to witness, or permit, the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which. we are committed today at home and around the world. 此时，让这个声音从这里同时向我们的朋友和敌人传达：火炬现已传递到新一代美国人手中——他们生于本世纪，既经受过战火的锤炼，又经历过艰难严峻的和平岁月的考验。他们深为我们古老的遗产所自豪——决不愿目睹或听任诸项人权受到无形的侵蚀，这些权利不仅为这个国家始终信守不渝，亦是我们正在国内和世界上誓死捍卫的东西。 Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. 让每一个国家都知道，无论它们对我们抱有善意还是恶意，我们都准备付出任何代价、承受任何重任、迎战任何艰险、支持任何朋友、反对任何敌人，以使自由得以维系和取得胜利。 To those new states whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our words that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny We sha1l not always expect to tind them supporting our view, but we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom,