-
But what counts as respecting my life and respecting my property, that is for governments to decide and to define.
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。
-
I can't dispose of my life or my liberty or my property in a way that violates my rights.
我不能放弃自己的生命或自由或财产,因为某种程度上说，这侵犯了我的权利。
-
Sociologically unlike the philosopher is a person of some inherited wealth chiefly landed property but whose way of life will be urban.
亚里士多德清楚地指明,不像哲学家,前者继承了一定程度的财富,主要是地产,但其生活模式。
-
Nature gave each individual the right to life, liberty, property, and nobody could take these away legitimately.
自然赋予每个个体以,生命权,自由权和财产权,没有人有权力剥夺
-
Crimes in the one realm cannot be compensated by punishment in the other realm. A crime in the realm of life/personal injury has to be compensated in the same realm. In the same way property crimes are not punished by death.
一个领域内的犯罪行为不能通过另一个领域的,惩罚来补偿，造成人身伤害的罪行必须在,同一领域内偿还，同样地，财产犯罪,不能被处以死刑。
-
But those human laws are only legitimate if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
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。
-
That there be property, that there be respect for life and liberty is what limits government.
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。
-
So even once the majority is in charge, the majority can't violate your inalienable rights, can't violate your fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
所以即使多数人掌权，多数人也不能侵犯你不可剥夺的权利，不能侵犯你基本的生命，自由和财产权。
-
There is punishment and before you know it, everybody is insecure in the enjoyment of his or her unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.
就能惩罚他，不知不觉间，所有人不可剥夺的生命，自由,和财产权都没了保障。
-
And his basic rights were seen to be absolute, for nothing must interfere with the right of each individual to defend his life, liberty, and property.
人的基本权利被视作每个个体都绝对拥有的,任何事物都无法干涉的,自卫,自由,财产的权利
-
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.
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。
-
Disappointment number two, once there is a legitimate government based on consent, the only limits for Locke are limits on arbitrary takings of life or of liberty or of property.
失望的第二点，一旦经过同意建立合法政府后，对洛克来说它唯一的限制,就是不能肆意夺取生命或自由或财产。
-
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.
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。
-
And when Locke speaks about the right to property, he often uses that as a kind of global term for the whole category, the right to life, liberty, and property.
洛克所说的所有权，通常概括了所有的自然权利，即生命，自由和财产权。
-
Because at the whim of the king, or for that matter, of the parliament, we can name you or you to give up your property or to give up your life.
因为这样的话，国王就可以随心所欲，在这种情况下，就是国会可以随心所欲，让你们中的任何人放弃财产，或放弃生命。
-
On the one hand, we have these unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, which means that even we don't have the power to give them up, and that's what creates the limits on legitimate government.
一方面，我们有不可剥夺的生命，自由和财产权，这意味着即使我们自己也无权放弃，正是这些权利，造成了对合法政府的限制。
-
So the real question is how does he himself figure it out between " "I agree to give up my life, give up my property" when he talks about taxes or military conscription for the fact.
所以真正的问题是，他如何能自圆其说以下观点,“我同意放弃我的生命，放弃我的财产“,当他谈到税收制或征兵制时是这样说的。
-
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.
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。
应用推荐