这是一份期末作业 在此附上和灰袍的一些讨论～ 西方政治思想史 读书笔记 《社会契约论》卢梭 Vanessa 国际关系学院 引言：本次读书我选择了颇负盛名的卢梭《社会契约论》，得此机会能坐下来仔细阅读一番，选取了第一卷和第三卷综合进行评述，是采用摘录一段+评述一段的方式呈现，参考译本是 The Social Contract 英文版中文导读 中国人民大学出版社 （英）G.D.H 科尔译，王田田导读／另中文版参考的是何兆武先生翻译的《社会契...
西方政治思想史 读书笔记 《社会契约论》卢梭
引言：本次读书我选择了颇负盛名的卢梭《社会契约论》，得此机会能坐下来仔细阅读一番，选取了第一卷和第三卷综合进行评述，是采用摘录一段+评述一段的方式呈现，参考译本是 The Social Contract 英文版中文导读 中国人民大学出版社 （英）G.D.H 科尔译，王田田导读／另中文版参考的是何兆武先生翻译的《社会契约论》，天津人民出版社。但是遗憾的是何先生大部分翻译都实在太过晦涩难懂，因此主要参考的是英文版，并且附上了自己的试译。卢梭的《社会契约论》思想体系完备连贯，从人性本善和自由平等的自然状态出发，描述了原始状态及其必然瓦解后，人们为了自我保存而寻求一种联合的形式，希望回答生存在社会制度下的人类如何实现政治社会中的自由。“什么能使得一个政治社会具有合法性？”“什么是主权？”“政府的创制是否是契约，还是法律？”“什么是唯一合法的政治制度？”“是否存在最好的政治制度？”“如何维护主权者的权威？”“如何巩固国家主权和体制？”一个个问题环环相扣，层次推进，读来思考颇多，又在他复杂精妙的逻辑体系中兜兜转转，常因其严密的论证而拍案叫绝，又因时代的不同和历史、现有政治制度的尝试和失败而对当时卢梭的一些观点提出新的反思和思考，收获颇丰。导读者有言：
I shall be asked if I am a prince or a legislator, to write on politics. I answer that I am neither, and that is why I do so. If I were a prince or a legislator, I should not waste time in saying what wants doing; I should do it, or hold my peace.
As I was born a citizen of a free State, and a member of the Sovereign, I fell that, however feeble the influence of my voice can have on public affairs, the right of voting on them makes it my duty to study them: and that I am happy, when I reflect upon governments, to find my inquiries always furnish me with new reasons for loving that of my own countries.
MAN is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than them.
As long as a people is compelled to obey, and obeys, it does well; as soon as it can shake off the yoke, and shakes it off, it does still better; for, regaining its liberty by the same right as took it away, either it is justified in resuming it, or there was no justification for those who took it away.
The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. The whole difference is that, in the family, the love of the father for his children repays him for the care he takes of them, while, in the State, the pleasure of commanding takes the place of the love which the chief cannot have for the people under him.
Aristotle was right; but he took the effect for the case. Nothing can be more certain than that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of escaping from them: they love their servitude… If then there are slaves by nature, it is because there have been slaves against the nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuated the condition.
To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man, to surrender the rights of humanity and even its duties.
Grotius and the rest find in war another origin for the so-called right of slavery. The victor having, as they told, the right of killing the vanquished, the latter can buy back his life at the price of his liberty.
So, from whatever aspect we regard the question, the right of slavery is null and void, not only as being illegitimate, but also because it is absurd and meaningless. The words slave and right contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive.
There will always be a great difference between subduing a multitude and ruling a society…. I see no more than a master and his slaves, and certainly not a people and its ruler; I see what may be termed as an aggregation, but not an association.
A people, says Grotius, can give itself to a King. Then, according to Grotius, a people is a people before it gives itself. The gift is itself a civil act, and implies public deliberation. It would be better, before examining the act by which a people gives itself to a king, to examine that by which it has become a people; for this act, being necessarily prior to the other, is the true foundation of society.
“The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” This is the fundamental problem of which the Social Contract provides the solution.
The public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members States when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.
Each individual, in making a contract, with himself, is bound in a double capacity; as a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign.
In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking--- which alone can give force to the rest—that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical and liable to the most frightful abuses. 为了让社会契约不沦为一纸空文，它颇具战略眼光地暗含了保证执行的效力——单单这一条就使其他部分产生效用——不论是谁，一旦拒绝服从公众意愿，将会在群体迫使下服从。这意味着他会被迫使去获得自由。因为正是在这一情况所有公民都享有的情况下，他能被免于任何形式下的人身依赖。这就是政治机器得以运转的关键。单单这一点就让公民治理合法化，若是没有它，社会契约便会遭到滥用，沦为荒谬和暴政。
What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.
If we are to avoid mistake in weighing one against the other, we must clearly distinguish natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual, from civil liberty, which is limited by the general will; and possession, which is merely the effect of force or the right of the first occupier, from property, which can be founded only on a positive title.
We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves in liberty. But I have already said too much on this head, and the philosophical meaning of the word liberty does not now concern us.
I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right.
Every free action is produced by the concurrence of two causes; one moral, i.e., the will which determines the act; the other physical, i.e., the power which executes it… The body politic has the same motive powers; here too force and will are distinguished, will under the name of legislative power and force under that of executive power. Without their concurrence, noting is, or should be done.
为了更好地理解卢梭多次引用的“主权者”和“政府”的概念，特将卢梭在《政治经济学》中的引述摘录如下：“我请求读者们还要好好地区别我说的公共经济，着我就称为政府，以及我所说的最高权威，这我称之为主权者；这一区别就在于后者具有立法权并在某些情况下可以强迫国家共同体，而前者则指具有执行权而且只能强迫个人。”在本章中卢梭进一步指出 “Here we have what is, in the State, the basis of government, often wrongly confused with the Sovereign, whose minister it is.” 政府和主权者往往被人混淆，其实政府只不过是主权者的执行人。
What then is government? An intermediate body set up between the subjects and the Sovereign, to secure their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws and the maintenance of liberty, both civil and political.
I call then government, or supreme administration, the legitimate exercise of the executive power, and prince or magistrate the man or the body entrusted with that administration.
Without encumbering ourselves with this multiplication of terms, let us rest content with regarding government as a new body within the State, distinct from the people and the Sovereign, and intermediate between them.
If, in the different States, the number of supreme magistrates, should be in inverse ratio to the number of citizens, it follows that, generally, democratic government suit small States, aristocratic government those of middle size, and monarchy great ones.
Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a simple government.
Simple government is better in itself, just because it is simple. But when the executive power is not sufficiently dependent upon the legislative power, i.e., when the prince it more closely related to the Sovereign than the people to the prince, this lack of proportion must be cured by the division of government; for all the parts have then no less authority over the subjects, while their division makes them all together less strong against the Sovereign.
When the State is dissolved, the abuse of government, whatever it is, bears the common name of anarchy. To distinguish, democracy degenerates into ochlocracy, and aristocracy into oligarchy; I would add that royalty degenerates into tyranny. 当国家解体时，政府的滥用职权，无论是什么样的滥用，就统称为无政府状态。与此有别，民主制则退化为群氓制，贵族制则退化为寡头制，还应补充，君主制就退化为暴君制。
Under what general idea then should the act by which government is instituted be conceived as falling? I will begin by stating that the act is complex, as being composed of two others---the establishment of the law and its execution.