Has socialism failed because it's good qualities were perverted by evil men who got in charge? was it simply because Stalin took over from Lenin that communism went the way it did? Has capitalism succeeded despite the immoral values that pervaded? I think the answer to both questions is in the negative.
社會主義的失敗是因為它的高尚企圖被掌權的邪惡人物所扭曲了嗎？僅僅是因為斯大林從列寧手中接管了權力共產主義就發展成了那樣？資本主義是儘管瀰漫着不道德的價值觀卻成功了麼？我認為這兩個問題的答案都是負面的。
The results have arisen because each system has been true to its own values, or rather, a system doesn't have values I don't mean that, has been true to the values it encourages supports and develops in the people who live under that system.
之所以出現這種結果，是因為兩個系統都恪守自己的價值觀，或者說，一個系統沒有價值觀，我不是這個意思。兩個系統都在對其之下的人鼓勵，幫助，發展其對應的價值觀。
What we're concerned with in discussing moral values here are those that have to do with the relations between people.
在這裏討論道德價值觀時，我們所關心的是那些人與人之間相處的價值觀。
It's important to distinguish between two sets of moral considerations- the morality that is relevant to each of us in our private life, how we each individually conduct ourselves, behave; and then what's relevant to systems of government and organization are the relations between people.
重要的是要區分兩組不同的價值觀：與我們每個人的私生活有關的道德，關於我們各自的行為方式和行為方式；和與政府和組織系統相關的，人與人之間的關係。
And in judging relations among between people I do not believe that the fundamental value is to do good to others, whether they want you to or not.
在判斷人與人之間的關係時，我不認為最根本的價值是對他人做善事，不管他們願不願意。
The fundamental value is not to do good to others as you see their good. It's not to force them to do good. As I see it, the fundamental value in relations to among people is to respect the dignity and the individuality of fellow man, to treat your fellow man not as an object to be manipulated for your purpose, but to treat him as a person with his own values in his own rights, a person to be persuaded, not coerced, not forced, not bulldozed, not brainwashed.
最根本的價值是不要以自己的主觀想法去對他人做善事。也不要強迫他們做善事。我認為，人與人之間關係的基本價值是尊重同胞的尊嚴和個性，不將同胞視為要為自己目的而操縱的對象，而是將他當作一個擁有自己的價值觀和權利的人來看待，把它當作一個需要被說服的人，而不是被脅迫，強迫，壓碾，或洗腦。
That seems to me to be a fundamental value in social relations.
在我看來，這是社會關係中的一項基本價值。
Whenever we depart from voluntary cooperation and try to do good by using force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.
每當我們離開自願合作並嘗試通過使用暴力來做善事時，暴力的不良道德價值就會勝過好意。
And you realize this is highly relevant to what I'm saying, because the essential notion of a capitalist society, which I'll come back to, is voluntary cooperation and voluntary exchange.
您會意識到這與我所說的內容高度相關，我將再次回到這個題目上，資本主義社會的基本概念就是自願合作和自願交換。
The essential notion of a socialist society is fundamentally force.
社會主義社會的基本觀念從根本上講是暴力。
if the government is the master, if society is to be run from the center,what do you do? what are you doing?
如果政府是主人，如果社會要從中心運行，你會怎麼做？你要做什麼？
You automatically have to order people what to do, whatis your ultimate sanction? Go back aways, take it on a milder level, whenever you try to do good with somebody else's money, you are committed to using force.
你會自動命令他人做什麼，你最終命令他人的方式是什麼？退一步講，溫和一點，每當你嘗試用他人的錢做善事時，你都會致力於暴力。
How can you do good with somebody else's money unless you first take it away from them.
不先從他人手裏搶過來他們的錢，你怎麼用這些錢做善事？
The only way you can take it away from them is by the threat of force. You have a policeman, a tax collector who comes and takes it from you.
把錢從他人手中搶過來的唯一方法就是動用武力的威脅。一個警察，收稅員會來把你的錢收走。
This is carrying much farther if you really have a socialist society. If you have an organization from the centre, if you have supposed government bureaucrats running things that can only ultimately rest on force.
如果是真的社會主義社會，這現象將走得更遠。如果你有一個從中心運轉的組織，如果你有政府官員來運轉社會，這種機制只能依賴與暴力。
But whenever you resort to force, even to try to do good, you must not questions people's motives. maybe they're evil sometime, but look at the results of what they do, give them the benefit of the doubt, assume their motives are good.
但是，無論何時訴諸暴力，甚至試圖做善事-你不應該質疑人們的動機。也許他們有時候是邪惡的，但是看看他們所做的結果，給他們懷疑的好處，並先假設他們的動機是好的。
You know there's an old saying about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions.
你們應該知道有一句老話：通往地獄的大道是由善意鋪平的。
You have to look at the outcome. And whenever you use force, the bad moral value of force triumphs over good intentions.
你得查看結果。每當你使用暴力時，暴力的不良道德價值就會戰勝好意。
The reason is not only that famous aphorism of Lord Acton, you all know it, you've all heard:"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
原因不僅是阿克頓勳爵的著名格言，你們都知道，你們都聽說過："權力腐敗，絕對權力絕對腐敗"。
That's one reason why trying to do good with methods that involve force lead to bad results. Because of people who set out with good intentions are themselves corrupted, and I may add if they're not corrupted they're replaced by people with bad intentions, who are more efficient at getting control of the use of force.
這就是為什麼嘗試用暴力做善事會導致不良結果的原因之一。因為有善意的人本身就是被腐敗的人，我還要補充一點，如果他們沒有被腐敗，他們就會被有惡意的人所取代，有惡意的人更精通與使用暴力之道。
But also the fundamental reason is more profound, the most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their instincts, and the purity of their intentions.
但是，最根本的原因是更深遠的，當權力掌握在絕對相信自己本能的純潔和意圖純潔的人們的手中時，造成的傷害是最大的。
Thoreau says that philanthropy is a much overrated virtue, sincerity is also a much overrated virtue. Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what's good for you and by heaven is going to make you do it whether you like it or not.
梭羅說，慈善是一種高估的美德，真誠也是一種高估的美德。請天堂從真誠的改革者的手中保護我們，這種人如果知道作什麼事情對你有好處，無論用什麼方法他也要逼你去做，不管你喜不喜歡。
That's when you get the greatest harm done. I have no reason to doubt that Lenin was a man whose intentions were good, maybe they weren't,but he was completely persuaded that he was right and he was willing to use any methods at all for the ultimate good.
那就是造成最大的傷害的時候。我沒有理由懷疑列寧是又一個善意的人，也許不是。但他完全說服了自己他是對的，所以他願意為最終的善意使用任何方法。
Again, it's interesting to contrast the experience of Hitler versus Mussolini.
比較希特拉和墨索里尼的經歷很有趣。
Mussolini was much less of a danger to human right because he was a hypocrite. Because he didn't really believe what he was saying, he was just in there for the game. He started out as a socialist, he turned to a fascist, he was willing to be bribed by whoever would bribe him the most. As a result, there were at least some protections against his arbitrary rule. But Hitler was a sincere fanatic, he believed in what he was doing and he did far greater harm
墨索里尼是個偽君子，所以對人權的威脅要小得多。因為他真的不相信自己在說什麼，他不是認真的。他起初是社會主義者，後來轉為法西斯主義者，他願意被賄賂最多的人賄賂。結果，至少有一些針對他的任意統治的保護措施。但是希特拉是一個真誠的狂熱者，他相信自己的所作所為是對的，所以他造成了更大的傷害
