Hobbes insists on the fundamental equality of human beings, who he says are endowed with certain natural and inalienable rights.

霍布斯认为，人类应该是,基本平等的，他认为人类天生就被赋予了,一些自然和不可剥夺的权利。

耶鲁公开课 - 政治哲学导论课程节选

Does Locke have a way out of this or is he basically sanctioning an all-powerful government, despite everything he says about unalienable rights?

洛克对此能自圆其说吗,还是说他其实是支持万能政府的呢，尽管他说了那么多什么不可剥夺的权利？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and as Jefferson amended Locke, to the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights.

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

So in one sense, an unalienable right, a nontransferable right makes something I own less fully mine.

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

So the idea that rights are unalienable seems to distance Locke from the libertarian.

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。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

It's natural in the sense that we have a fundamental unalienable right that there be property, that the institution of property exist and be respected by the government.

自然权利是说财产权是基本的不可剥夺的,正因为它是这样的权利，所以有产权制度存在，并被政府所尊重。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

It's the idea that our natural rights are unalienable.

他认为自然权利是不可剥夺的。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Unalienable rights.

不可剥夺的权利。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

So, what starts out as a seemingly benign state of nature where everyone is free and yet where there is a law and the law respects people's rights, and those rights are so powerful that they're unalienable.

乍一看自然状态是十分良善的,人人皆自由，但还有自然法,自然法尊重人们的权利，而这些权利是如此强大，它们是不可剥夺的。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选