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。
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?
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
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。
It's the idea that our natural rights are unalienable.
他认为自然权利是不可剥夺的。
Unalienable rights.
不可剥夺的权利。
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。
应用推荐