准备完整翻译洛克的《论世俗政府》第二卷
1，[font=Arial][size=12.0pt]The Second Treatise of CivilGovernment[/size][/font] ：论世俗政府（约翰·洛克著）2，英文来源：[font=Arial][size=12.0pt][url=http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/locke/john/l81s/index.html]http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/l/locke/john/l81s/index.html[/url]，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；[/size][/font] [b]Chapter I.[/b]
[b]第一章[/b]
§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； 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。 §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。 支持+膜拜一下~:sam24z [b] [url=http://www.yantan.cc/bbs/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=507697&ptid=106379]5#[/url] [i]李新苗[/i] [/b]
谢谢新苗兄.膜拜过头了.... [b]Chapter II.
Of the State of Nature.
第二章 论自然状态[/b]
§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。 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。:) §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。 §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。 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。 [quote]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。
[size=2][color=#999999]李大苗 发表于 2011-6-28 21:39[/color] [url=http://www.yantan.cc/bbs/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=507983&ptid=106379][img]http://www.yantan.cc/bbs/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url][/size][/quote]
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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 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. [i=s] 本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-6-30 10:15 编辑 [/i]
§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。 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。 §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。 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。 §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：[b]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[/b]；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。 §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：[b]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[/b]；对此我肯定会在后面的论述中进行更清晰的说明。 [i=s] 本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-6-30 21:10 编辑 [/i]
[b]Chapter III.
Of the State of War.
第三章 论战争状态
[/b]
§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，[b]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[/b]：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。 §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。 §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。 在洛克看来，同样是偷盗，对待小偷与强盗的区别是蛮大的。 §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。 [i=s] 本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-1 16:37 编辑 [/i]
§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；[b]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。[/b] §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。 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. [b]Chapter IV.
Of Slavery.
第四章 论奴役状态[/b]
§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。 §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） 。 [i=s] 本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-2 14:12 编辑 [/i]
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。 [i=s] 本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-2 17:59 编辑 [/i]
[b]Chapter V.
Of Property.
第五章 论财产权利[/b]
§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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 翻译稿费知多少？ [b] [url=http://www.yantan.cc/bbs/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=508835&ptid=106379]39#[/url] [i]WIND[/i] [/b]
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。 [quote] 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。
[size=2][color=#999999]李大苗 发表于 2011-7-3 17:48[/color] [url=http://www.yantan.cc/bbs/redirect.php?goto=findpost&pid=508945&ptid=106379][img]http://www.yantan.cc/bbs/images/common/back.gif[/img][/url][/size][/quote]
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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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）。 §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。 §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。 §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。 §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。 [i=s] 本帖最后由 WIND 于 2011-7-5 10:49 编辑 [/i]
§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。 §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。 [b]Chapter VI.
Of Paternal Power.
第六章 论父权力
[/b]
§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。 §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。 §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。 §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。