充满智慧、幽默的哈佛大学公开课-第7讲这是我的土地

25:10
Today, we turn to John Locke. On the face of it, Locke is a powerful ally of the libertarian.
今天 我们开始讲约翰·洛克。表面上看，洛克是自由主义的强力盟友。
First, he believes, as libertarians today maintain, that there are certain fundamental individual rights that are so important that no government, even a representative government, even a democratically elected government, can override them.
Not only that, he believes that those fundamental rights include a natural right to life, liberty, and property, and furthermore he argues that the right to property is not just the creation of government or of law.
与当今自由主义者一样，他首先认为有些基本的个人权利至关重要，以至任何政府，甚至代议政府，甚至民主选举的政府都无法剥夺。不仅如此，他还认为这些基本权利包括生命、自由和财产的自然权利，此外他还认为财产权不仅仅是政府或是法律的产物。
The right to property is a natural right in the sense that it is prepolitical. It is a right that attaches to individuals as human beings, even before government comes on the scene, even before parliaments and legislatures enact laws to define rights and to enforce them.
财产权某种意义上可以说是先于政治的自然权利。这种权利依附于个体而存在，甚至早于任何政府的建立，甚至早在任何议会和立法机关制定法律定义权利并强制实施前就已存在。
Locke says in order to think about what it means to have a natural right, we have to imagine the way things are before government, before law, and that"s what Locke means by the state of nature. He says the state of nature is a state of liberty.
洛克说，为了理解拥有自然权利意味着什么，得先想象下政府与法律存在之前事物的运作方式，即洛克所说的自然状态。他说自然状态就是一种自由状态。
Human beings are free and equal beings. There is no natural hierarchy.
每个人都是自由而平等的。自然状态下没有等级制度。
It"s not the case that some people are born to be kings and others are born to be serfs. We are free and equal in the state of nature and yet, he makes the point that there is a difference between a state of liberty and a state of license.
并不是一些人天生就是君王而另一些人天生就是奴隶。每个人在自然状态下都是自由而平等的，但是他同时指出，自由状态和放纵状态是有区别的。
And the reason is that even in the state of nature, there is a kind of law. It"s not the kind of law that legislatures enact. It"s a law of nature.
因为即使处在自然状态下仍受某种法的约束。不是立法机关制定的法律。而是一种自然法。
And this law of nature constrains what we can do even though we are free, even though we are in the state of nature. Well what are the constraints?
这种自然法制约着我们的行为，即便我们是自由的，即便是在自然状态下。它制约的是什么呢？
The only constraint given by the law of nature is that the rights we have, the natural rights we have we can"t give up nor can we take them from somebody else. Under the law of nature, I"m not free to take somebody else"s life or liberty or property, nor am I free to take my own life or liberty or property.
自然法唯一制约的是我们拥有的这些自然权利我们不能放弃，也不能剥夺他人的。根据自然法，我不能随意剥夺他人的生命、自由或财产，也不能随意剥夺自己的生命、自由或财产。
Even though I am free, I"m not free to violate the law of nature. I"m not free to take my own life or to sell my self into slavery or to give to somebody else arbitrary absolute power over me. So where does this constraint, you may think it"s a fairly minimal constraint, but where does it come from?
即使我是自由的，我也不能随意违背自然法。不能随意自杀，或出售自己成为奴隶，或给别人绝对权力任意主宰我。你可能觉得这些制约相当微小，但它从何而来呢？
Well, Locke tells us where it comes from and he gives two answers. Here is the first answer.
洛克告诉了我们它的来源，他给了我们两个答案 。这是第一个答案。
"For men, being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker," Namely God, "They are His property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another"s pleasure." So one answer to the question is why can"t I give up my natural rights to life, liberty, and property is well, they"re not, strictly speaking, yours.
《政府论(下篇)》第二章，“论自然状态” 第6节，“既然人类都是无所不能和无限智慧的创世主的创造物，” 也就是上帝，“他们就是他的财产，是他的创造物，他要他们存在多久就存在多久，由不得他们自己作主。”第一个答案解释了为什么我们不能放弃我们的生命，自由和财产权利，因为严格来说它们不是自己的。
After all, you are the creature of God. God has a bigger property right in us, a prior property right.
毕竟，人都是上帝的产物。上帝更有权拥有我们，是种至高无上的权利。
Now, you might say that"s an unsatisfying, unconvincing answer, at least for those who don"t believe in God. What did Locke have to say to them?
你可能觉得这答案无法令人满意，没说服力，至少对那些不信仰上帝的人来说是这样。那么洛克对他们又有什么说法呢？
Well, here is where Locke appeals to the idea of reason and this is the idea, that if we properly reflect on what it means to be free, we will be led to the conclusion that freedom can"t just be a matter of doing whatever we want.
I think this is what Locke means when he says, "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches mankind who will but consult it that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
洛克对理性进行了解释，其解释如下，如果我们恰当反思自由的含义，我们便会得出结论：自由绝不是让我们能为所欲为。我认为以下洛克所说的就是这个意思，“自然状态受自然法支配，人人均应遵循：而理性，即自然法，教导着有意遵从它的人类，人们既然都是平等和独立的，任何人就不得侵害他人的生命、健康、自由或财产。”
This leads to a puzzling paradoxical feature of Locke"s account of rights. Familiar in one sense but strange in another.
这就引出了洛克在权利的诠释上令人费解的矛盾之处。某种意义上很熟悉，某种意义上又很陌生。
It"s the idea that our natural rights are unalienable. What does "Unalienable" mean? It"s not for us to alienate them or to give them up, to give them away, to trade them away, to sell them.
他认为自然权利是不可剥夺的。“不可剥夺”是什么意思？就是我们不能远离，放弃、丢弃、交易或出售自然权利。
Consider an airline ticket. Airline tickets are nontransferable.
试想一下飞机票。飞机票是不能转让的。
Or tickets to the Patriots or to the Red Sox. Nontransferable tickets are unalienable.
“新英格兰爱国者队”或“红袜队”的门票也一样。（两者同为职业橄榄球队）不可转让的门票，就是不可剥夺的。
I own them in the limited sense that I can use them for myself, but I can"t trade them away. So in one sense, an unalienable right, a nontransferable right makes something I own less fully mine.
我拥有票，但也界定了我只能自己使用，但不能出售它们。所以某种意义上，不可剥夺、不可转让的权利使我的所有物并不能完全为我所有。
But in another sense of unalienable rights, especially where we"re thinking about life, liberty, and property, for a right to be unalienable makes it more deeply, more profoundly mine, and that"s Locke"s sense of unalienable. We see it in the American Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson drew on this idea of Locke.
但另一种意义上说，不可剥夺的权利，尤其是我们的生命、自由和财产，正因为这些权利不可剥夺，使我能更深刻更充分拥有它，这就是洛克对不可剥夺的解释。在美国《独立宣言》中可以看到。托马斯·杰斐逊引用了洛克的这个观点。（美国第三任总统 《独立宣言》主要起草人）
Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and as Jefferson amended Locke, to the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights. Rights that are so essentially mine that even I can"t trade them away or give them up.
生命与自由不可剥夺，还在洛克基础上加上了追求幸福的权利，都是不可剥夺的权利。这些权利如此基本，对我必不可少，连我自己都不能出售或放弃它们。
So these are the rights we have in the state of nature before there is any government. In the case of life and liberty, I can"t take my own life. I can"t sell myself into slavery any more than I can take somebody else"s life or take someone else as a slave by force.
这些就是我们在政府产生前，自然状态下拥有的权利。就生命和自由而言，我不能剥夺自己的生命。不能将自己变卖为奴隶，我也不能剥夺他人生命或胁迫他人成为奴隶。
But how does that work in the case of property? Because it"s essential to Locke"s case that private property can arise even before there is any government.
但对财产而言又是怎样的情况呢？因为洛克理论中必不可少的一点是说，私有财产在任何政府建立前就已经产生。
How can there be a right to private property even before there is any government? Locke"s famous answer comes in Section 27.
但私有财产权利怎么能在政府建立之前就产生呢？洛克的经典回答在第27节。
"Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself."
“每人对他自己的人身享有一种所有权。（《政府论(下卷)》第五章第27节 “论财产”）除他以外任何人都没有这种权利。”
"The labor of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his." So he moves, as the libertarians later would move, from the idea that we own ourselves, that we have property in our persons to the closely connected idea that we own our own labor.
“他身体的劳作，双手的劳动，我们可以说是正当地属于他的。”因此他更进一步，自由主义者此后也将如此，从自我拥有的观点，即我们拥有自我所有权更进一步到与之紧密关联的，我们拥有自己劳动的观点。
And from that to the further claim that whatever we mix our labor with that is unowned becomes our property. "Whatever he removes out of the state that nature has provided, and left it in, he has mixed his labor with, and joined it to something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
再更进一步为以下观点，任何施加了我们劳动的无主物品，都是我们的财产。“所以只要他使任何东西脱离自然所提供的状态，脱离其现有状态，他就已经在这当中加入了他的劳动，施加了他自己所有的某些东西，因而使它成为他的财产。”（《政府论(下卷)》第五章 “论财产”）
Why? Because the labor is the unquestionable property of the laborer and therefore, no one but the laborer can have a right to what is joined to or mixed with his labor. And then he adds this important provision, "At least where there is enough, and as good left in common for others."
为什么？因为劳动是劳动者无可争议的所有物，因此别人没有所有权。并加上了这一重要补充，“至少在留有足够同样好的东西共有的情况下是这样的。”
But we not only acquire our property in the fruits of the earth, in the deer that we hunt, in the fish that we catch but also if we till and plow and enclose the land and grow potatoes, we own not only the potatoes but the land, the earth. "As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, cultivates and can use the product of, so much is his property.
但洛克认为，我们获取到的财产不仅包括采集到的水果，捕杀到的鹿群，捕捉到的鱼群，如果我们犁田耕种并圈地种植了土豆，我们获取到的财产不仅是土豆，还包括那块土地。“一个人能耕耘、播种、改良、栽培多少土地和能用多少土地的产品，这多少土地就是他的财产。
He by his labor encloses it from the commons." So the idea that rights are unalienable seems to distance Locke from the libertarian.
这就像是他用他的劳动从公地圈来的那样。”因此权利不可剥夺的观点似乎将洛克和自由主义者区分开了。
Libertarian wants to say we have an absolute property right in ourselves and therefore, we can do with ourselves whatever we want. Locke is not a sturdy ally for that view.
自由主义者认为我们对自身拥有绝对所有权，因此我们能做任何自己想做的事。而洛克却不是完全支持这个观点。
In fact, he says if you take natural rights seriously, you"ll be led to the idea that there are certain constraints on what we can do with our natural rights, constraints given either by God or by reason reflecting on what it means really to be free, and really to be free means recognizing that our rights are unalienable.
So here is the difference between Locke and the libertarians. But when it comes to Locke"s account of private property, he begins to look again like a pretty good ally.
事实上，他说如果我们认真看待自然权利，你就会意识到我们的自然权利也受到一定制约，该制约不管是来自上帝，或者是因为反思过什么是真正的自由，并认为真正的自由就是承认某些权利不可剥夺。这就是洛克与自由主义者之间的区别。但谈到洛克的私有财产观点时，他似乎又成了自由主义者的盟友。
Because his argument for private property begins with the idea that we are the proprietors of our own person and therefore, of our labor, and therefore, of the fruits of our labor, including not only the things we gather and hunt in the state of nature but also we acquire our property right in the land that we enclose and cultivate and improve.
There are some examples that can bring out the moral intuition that our labor can take something that is unowned and make it ours, though sometimes, there are disputes about this.
因为洛克对私有财产的论述以如下观点开始，我们拥有自己的所有权，因而拥有我们的劳动力，因而拥有我们的劳动成果，不仅包括我们在自然状态下采集或捕获的东西，还包括我们圈地并耕种改良过的那些土地的所有权。有些例子可以说明，在道德上通过劳动能使无主物品成为我们的所有物，尽管有时这一点颇具争议。
There is a debate among rich countries and developing countries about trade-related intellectual property rights. It came to a head recently over drug patent laws.
发达国家和发展中国家在贸易知识产权上存在着纠纷。最近尤为突出的，是在药品专利法上。
Western countries, and especially the United States say, "We have a big pharmaceutical industry that develops new drugs. We want all countries in the world to agree to respect the patents."
西方国家，尤其是美国宣称，“我们拥有研发新药品的大制药业。希望全世界都同意尊重这些药品专利。”
Then, there came along the AIDS crisis in South Africa, and The American AIDS drugs were hugely expensive, far more than could be afforded by most Africans.
然而，艾滋危机在南非爆发之后， 美国生产的艾滋病药物价格高昂至极，大多数非洲居民根本无力承担治疗的费用。
So the South African government said, "We are going to begin to buy a generic version of the AIDS antiretroviral drug at a tiny fraction of the cost because we can find an Indian manufacturing company that figures out how the thing is made and produces it, and for a tiny fraction of the cost, we can save lives if we don"t respect that patent."
And then the American government said, "No, here is a company that invested research and created this drug.
因此南非政府宣称，“我们将开始购买非专利的艾滋抗逆转录病毒药，仅需极少花费就行，因为我们能找到一家印度制造商，知道这些药物的原理，并能制造，所以仅需极少的花费就能救治生命，只要我们不尊重药品专利。”然后美国政府又说了，“不行，这些都是美国公司花巨资研制出的药品。
You can"t just start mass producing these drugs without paying a licensing fee." So there was a dispute and the pharmaceutical company sued the South African government to try to prevent their buying the cheap generic, as they saw it, pirated version of an AIDS drug. And eventually, the pharmaceutical industry gave in and said, "All right, you can do that."
But this dispute about what the rules of property should be, of intellectual property of drug patenting, in a way, is the last frontier of the state of nature.
你们不能就这样大规模生产，却不付任何专利费。”因此这存在着纠纷，制药公司起诉了南非政府以阻止他们购买这些低价的非专利药，在他们看来，这些都是盗版的艾滋病药。最终，制药公司让步说，“好吧，你们可以这样做。”但这个如何规范药品专利知识产权的财产权纠纷，某种程度上是自然状态最后的边疆了。
Because among nations where there is no uniform law of patent rights and property rights, it"s up for grabs until, by some act of consent, some international agreement, people enter into some settled rules. What about Locke"s account of private property and how it can arise before government and before law comes on the scene?
因为目前各国间并没有统一的专利权法和财产法，这会一直争议下去，直到达成共识，签订国际协议，设置通用规则。大家如何看待洛克关于私有财产，及其如何能早于任何政府法律而产生这一观点？
Is it successful? How many think it"s pretty persuasive?
能成立吗？有多少人认为它很有说服力的？
Raise your hand. How many don"t find it persuasive?
请举手。有多少人认为这没有说服力的？
All right, let"s hear from some critics. What is wrong with Locke"s account of how private property can arise without consent?
好吧，我们来听些批评意见。洛克关于私有财产无需他人同意就能产生这个观点，有何错呢？
Yes? Yeah, I think it justifies European cultural norms as far as when you look at how Native Americans may not have cultivated American land, but by their arrival in the Americas, that contributed to the development of America, which wouldn"t have otherwise necessarily happened then or by that specific group.
你来说？我认为它正义化了欧洲殖民的文化入侵，他是在辩称，之前印第安人可能并未耕种美洲土地，但欧洲殖民来到美洲后，促进了美洲的发展，如果不是欧洲的殖民，未必会有美洲今天的发展。
- So you think that this is a defense, this defense of private property in land. . . - Yes, because it complicates original acquisition, If you only cite the arrival of foreigners that cultivated the land. - I see. And what"s your name? - Rochelle. - Rochelle? - Yeah.
- 所以你认为他是在为土地的私人所有作辩护吗？- 是的，因为这复杂化了“最初占有”原则，如果只引用外国人到来并耕种土地这一例子的话。- 我明白了，你叫什么名字？ - 罗谢尔。- 罗谢尔。- 对。
Rochelle says this account of how property arises would fit what was going on in North America during the time of the settlement—European settlement. Do you think, Rochelle, it"s a way of defending the appropriation of the land?
罗谢尔认为，他的关于财产如何产生的观点是在迎合欧洲人刚来此殖民时美洲的情况。罗谢尔，你认为他是在为侵吞土地而辩护吗？
Indeed, because I mean, he is also justifying the Glorious Revolutions. I don"t think it"s inconceivable he"s also justifying colonization as well. Well, that"s an interesting historical suggestion and I think there is a lot to be said for it.
是的，事实上他还正义化了光荣革命。（光荣革命:英国一场和宗教有关的非暴力宫廷政变，洛克曾在《政府论》中为其辩护）也就不难想象他会为殖民化辩护。好的，很有趣的历史看法，这看法还有很多值得讨论的地方。
What do you think of the validity of his argument though? Because if you are right that this would justify the taking of land in North America from Native Americans who didn"t enclose it, if it"s a good argument, then Locke"s given us a justification for that. If it"s a bad argument, then Locke"s given us a mere rationalization that isn"t morally defensible.
那你怎么看待他论点的正确性呢？因为如果你是对的，洛克此举将正义化从印第安人手中占领他们尚未圈定的土地，这一行为如果他的观点是正确的，那么洛克给出了占领土地的正当理由。如果他的观点是错的，那么洛克的辩护只是看似合理，但在道义上站不住脚。
- I"m leaning to the second one. . . - You"re leaning toward the second one. - But that"s my opinion as well.
All right, well, then, let"s—let"s hear-let"s hear if there is a defender of Locke"s account of private property, and it would be interesting if they could address Rochelle"s worry that this is just a way of defending the appropriation of land by the American colonists from the Native Americans who didn"t enclose it. Is there someone who will defend Locke on that point?
- 我比较倾向第二个说法。- 你倾向第二个说法。- 但这只是我的个人观点。好吧，那我们听听是否有人要为洛克的私有财产权观点辩护，如果能解决罗谢尔的担忧那就更好了，罗谢尔认为这只是在为美国殖民者占领印第安人手中尚未圈定的土地这一行为作辩护。有人来为洛克的这一观点辩护吗？
You are ready—are you going to defend Locke? Like, you"re accusing him of justifying the European basically massacre of the Native Americans.
你会为洛克辩护吗？你指责洛克正义化了欧洲殖民者屠杀印第安人的行为。
But who says he is defending it? Maybe the European colonization isn"t right. You know, maybe it"s the state of war that he talked about in his Second Treatise, you know.
但谁说他是在为此辩护了？也许欧洲殖民化就是错误的。也许这就是《政府论(下篇)》里谈到的战争状态。
- So the wars between the Native Americans and the colonists, the settlers, that might have been a state of war that we can only emerge from by an agreement or an act of consent and that"s what would have been required fairly to resolve. . . - Yes, and both sides would have had to agree to it and carry it out and everything.
- But what about when, what"s your name? - Dan. But Dan, what about Rochelle says this argument in Section 27 and then in 32 about appropriating land, that argument, if it"s valid, would justify the settlers" appropriating that land and excluding others from it, you think that argument is a good argument?
- 所以印第安人与欧洲殖民者之间的战争，那也许就是战争状态，只有通过达成共识或签订契约才能摆脱，而这些只能通过公正来解决。- 是的，双方都必须达成共识并落实一切。- 但……你叫什么名字？- 丹。但是丹，对罗谢尔所说的第27及32节中占领土地的观点，你怎么看？如果这一观点是正确的，就能正义化殖民者占领该土地并将他人排斥在外，你认为这一观点是正确的吗？
Well, doesn"t it kind of imply that the Native Americans hadn"t already done that? Well, the Native Americans, as hunter-gatherers, didn"t actually enclose—enclose land. So I think Rochelle is onto something there.
这难道不是在暗示印第安人并未完成圈地吗？印第安人作为采猎者，事实上是没有圈地。所以我觉得罗谢尔说到点子上了。
- What I want to. . . Go ahead, Dan. - At the same time, he is saying that just by picking an acorn or taking an apple or maybe killing a buffalo on a certain amount of land, that makes it yours because it"s your labor and your labor would enclose that land. - So by that definition, maybe they didn"t have fences around little plots of land but didn"t. . . - They were using it.
- 我想说的是……继续说，丹。- 同时，洛克说只要在特地土地拾得橡果或摘下苹果或杀一头水牛，你就拥有了这块土地，因为这是你的劳动，你通过劳动圈定了这块土地。- 按照这个定义，也许他们是没有在那小块地上围上篱笆，但并不意味着……- 他们在使用该土地。
- Yes. By Locke"s definition, you can say. . . - So maybe by Locke"s definition, the Native Americans could have claimed a property right in the land itself. - Right, but they just didn"t have Locke on their side, as she points out. - All right, good. Okay, that"s good. One more defender of Locke. Go ahead.
- 是的，按照洛克的定义，你可以说……- 也许按照洛克的定义，印第安人可以宣称拥有对该土地的财产权。- 没错，只是洛克没有站在他们那边而已，正如罗谢尔指出的。- 很好，好的，这很不错。再来一个为洛克辩护的，你来。
Well, I mean, just to defend Locke, he does say that there are some times in which you can"t take another person"s land. For example, you can"t acquire a land that is common property, so people in terms of the American Indians, I feel like they already have civilizations themselves and they were using land in common.
So it"s kind of like what an analogy to what he was talking about with like the common English property. - You can"t take land that everybody is sharing in common. - Oh, that"s interesting. That"s interesting. - And also, you can"t take land unless you make sure that there is as much land as possible left for other people to take as well.
要为洛克辩护的话，他的确说到了几种情况下你不能掠夺他人的土地。比如，你不能掠夺公共财产，对于印第安人来说，我觉得他们已经有了自己的文明，他们用的就是公共土地。这有点像他所说的英国公有财产问题。- 你不能掠夺大家共同使用的公用土地。- 很有趣，非常有趣。- 同时，你不能掠夺他人土地，除非你保证还有足够的土地留给其他人使用。
- So if you"re taking common. . . So you have to make sure that whenever you take land that there is enough left for other people to use. . . - Right. - That"s just as good as the land that you took, so. . . That"s—that"s true. Locke says there has to be this right to private property in the earth is subject to the provision that there be as much and as good left for others.
- 所以……你得保证占有土地时要有足够剩余留给其他人……- 对。- 而且是跟你占有的土地一样好的……的确如此，洛克说过土地私人所有必须遵守的是还有足够多足够好的土地留给别人。
- What"s your name? - Right. I"m Feng. So Feng, in a way, agrees with Dan that maybe there is a claim within Locke"s framework that could be developed on behalf of the Native Americans.
- 你叫什么？- 对，我叫冯。冯，某种程度上赞同丹的观点，也许在洛克该观点的框架内是有可能发展出捍卫印第安人权益的观点的。
Here is the further question. If the right to private property is natural, not conventional, if it"s something that we acquire even before we agree to government, how does that right constrain what a legitimate government can do?
那又有个更进一步的问题。如果私有财产是与生俱来的，而非约定俗成，如果这是在我们同意组建政府前就拥有的，这个权利又如何能限制合法政府的行为呢？
In order, finally, to see whether is—whether Locke is an ally or potentially a critic of the libertarian idea of the state, we have to ask what becomes of our natural rights once we enter into society. We know that the way we enter into society is by consent, by agreement to leave the state of nature and to be governed by the majority and by a system of laws, human laws.
为了最终搞清洛克到底是自由主义的盟友，还是潜在的批评者，就得弄清 一旦进入社会,自然权利将有何变化。众所周知，只有经过同意才能进入社会，才能脱离自然状态，并被大多数人被人类法律体系所管辖。
But those human laws are only legitimate if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. No parliament, no legislature, however democratic its credentials, can legitimately violate our natural rights.
但这些人类法律合法的唯一前提就是尊重我们的自然权利，尊重我们不可剥夺的生命、自由和财产权 。没有任何议会或立法机构，不管其宣称自己如何民主，能合理侵犯我们的自然权利。
This idea that no law can violate our right to life, liberty, and property would seem to support the idea of a government so limited that it would gladden the heart of the libertarian after all.
But those hearts should not be so quickly gladdened because even though for Locke the law of nature persists once government arrives, even though Locke insists on limited government, government limited by the end for which it was created, namely the preservation of property.
任何法律都不能侵犯生命自由和财产权的观点似乎是支持"有限政府"这一观点的，这点无疑很讨自由主义者欢心。但他们不该高兴得那么早，因为在洛克看来，即便政府建立了自然法还是延续的，即便洛克坚持"有限政府"观点，政府最终受限于它的创建初衷，即保护我们的财产权，
Even so, there is an important sense in which what counts as my property, what counts as respecting my life and liberty are for the government to define. That there be property, that there be respect for life and liberty is what limits government.
即便如此，还有个重要问题，即怎样才算我们的财产，怎样才算尊重我们的生命与自由，这是由政府来界定的。对财产的界定，对生命与自由尊重的界定就是限制政府的因素。
But what counts as respecting my life and respecting my property, that is for governments to decide and to define. How can that be?
但到底怎样才算对生命和财产的尊重，这是由政府来决定和界定的。怎么会这样呢？
Is Locke contradicting himself or is there an important distinction here? In order to answer that question, which will decide Locke"s fit with the libertarian view, we need to look closely at what legitimate government looks like for Locke, and we turn to that next time.
是洛克在自相矛盾呢，还是这里存在着重大区别？为了回答这个问题，即确定洛克到底是否自由主义盟友，我们得进一步研究洛克所指的合法政府是什么，下次再继续这个话题。