洛克論自然法對累積私有財產的限制－再探《政府論次講》

Abstract

洛克在《政府論次講》中主張自然法對私有財產累積設下幾種限制，包含人們累積私有財產時必須從事勞動、取得他人同意、留給他人｢足夠且一樣好」以及不能讓資源敗壞等。然而對於自然法在人們進入政治社會後所扮演的角色與有效性，詮釋者卻未有共識。本論文主張這些自然法的限制並不會因為金錢發明、人們脫離自然狀態與進入政治社會而解消，事實上，自然法會在政治社會中繼續約束人們，而政府有義務制定符合自然法的法律，並確保這些限制繼續實行。本文進一步主張，《政府論次講》中所述政府成立目的所要保障的｢財產」是指廣義的｢財產」，也就是生命、自由、(狹義)財產，而其中又以不受支配的自由為核心，因這樣的自由才是保障生命與(狹義)財產的基礎。本文將透過分析和批評James Tully、Jeremy Waldron以及A. John Simmons的詮釋觀點，特別是他們如何理解｢勞動限制」、｢同意限制」與｢足量限制」這三個自然法對私有財產累積設下的限制，並藉此論證和區隔出本文獨特的詮釋觀點：政府成立的目的是為了保障每個人都能享有不受支配的自由。鑒於政府成立目的所要保障的財產並非自然狀態下所佔有的(狹義)財產，而是不受支配的自由，政府依循法律(非恣意)介入(狹義)財產可以得到證成，也因此政府進行私有財產重分配並不與｢保障財產」的目的相違。

In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke asserts that natural law sets limits on private property accumulation, including that men must labour, obtain others’ consent, leave “enough and as good” for others, and must not let the resource spoil when accumulating private property. However, interpreters have debated on the role and validity of natural law after people enter political society. This thesis maintains that these limits by natural law do not dissolve after the invention of money and people’s entrance into political society from the state of nature. As a matter of fact, natural law persists in binding people in political society, and the government is obligated to make laws in accordance with natural law and ensure the limits continue to be executed. This thesis further argues that in the Second Treatise, the “property” the government is to preserve refers to “Property” in the broader sense, that is, Life, Liberty and Possessions; among others, Liberty as non-domination is the core, as it is this Liberty that lays the foundation of preserving life and possessions. By examining and criticising the interpretations made by James Tully, Jeremy Waldron and A. John Simmons, especially how they apprehend the Labour Limit, Consent Limit and Sufficiency Limit, i.e. the three limits on private property accumulation set by natural law, the thesis demonstrates and distinguishes an alternative interpretation: the end of government is to preserve everyone’s Liberty as non-domination. In view that the property government is to preserve refers not to the possessions acquired in the state of nature, but to Liberty as non-domination, government’s (non-arbitrary) interference in possessions through law can be justified, and accordingly, government’s redistribution of private property does not contradict its end to “preserve property”.