回忆往事经常是很令人愉悦的事情。中英美暑期学院（以前叫中英暑期学院，后来又更名为中英澳暑期学院）到今年已经成功在中国开办了20年。在这20年中，该学院在全国各地成功地举办了12期正式班（session）和5期高级读书班（colloquium）。取得了丰硕的成果，为我国的哲学事业提供了新的视角，同时也使得我国年轻的学者不出国门就能接触到世界最新的哲学动向。  

我有幸成为1999年8月2—8日在北京骨伤学院（现在的望京医院附近）的留学生公寓举办的第三期高级读书讨论班的成员之一。那期读书班的中方的负责人是我的前任室主任邱仁宗教授。读书班的内容就是阅读和讨论诺奇克（Robert Nozick）的《无政府、国家和乌托邦》（Anarchy, State and Utopia）这本书。对于所谓的正式班是个什么样子我没有体会。但是，从我参加的那次高级读书班来看，正式班或许要更正式一些，时间更长一些，老师和学生的交流更亲密一些，学员的饮食起居都安排在一起，按时上下课，等等。而我参加的那期高级读书班就是读诺奇克的那本书，读完了还要写一篇小短文（essay）作为每个读书班成员的结业成绩。从我的观察和体验来看，没有固定的教材，专心在一个星期里好好读读经典，也是一件难得的事情。我是1998年从中国社会科学院研究生院毕业的博士生，刚刚到哲学所工作才一年，又适逢这次读书的机会，仿佛又回到了学校，因此更觉亲切。

诺齐克（Robert Nozick，1938-2002），被认为是20世纪最杰出的哲学家和思想家之一，生前是哈佛大学哲学系的波特（Arthur Kingsley Porter）讲座哲学教授，并于1998年被授予佩里格雷诺（Joseph Pellegrino）驻校教授职务（University Professorship）。1998年，诺齐克因为他“不仅对于当代哲学具有重要影响，而且以其观念超越了他所在的学科，乃至于学术的真实而深刻的影响”而获得这一荣誉，在此之前总共只有17位哈佛大学的教授获此殊荣。哈佛大学前校长路德斯泰因（Neil L. Rudenstine）评价道：“诺齐克是我所见到的最为渊博、锐利和敏捷的头脑之一，当他加入到心智、脑科学和行为科学的研究项目中来，就立刻入侵了生物科学的领域，并吞噬着神经元科学。他对于严肃话题或趣谈都有纯粹的兴趣。我几乎好像从未跟得上他的思路，但是我对能够和他同场共事感到愉快，即便是只有一两次机会。”诺齐克于1981－1984年担任了哈佛大学哲学系主任。所以读他的成名著作也是一种享受。

诺齐克的这部《无政府、国家和乌托邦》曾获1975年全美国家图书奖（National Book Award）。这是他第一部出版的学术著作，也是其成名作和影响力最大，最广为人知的著作。这部20世纪下半叶最为杰出的政治哲学论著之一，作为对罗尔斯（John Rawls, 1921-2002）1971年出版的《正义论》（A Theory of Justice）的批评和回应，《无政府、国家和乌托邦》系统地提出了一个理论洞识，即：资本主义国家的政府，在其规范意义上，应当是自由市场经济的“守夜人”（gate-keeper），只有充分限制了政府权力，避免对市场交换和分配加以过多干涉的“最小国家”（minimal state），才能充分保障和尊重个人的财产、权利和选择自由和道德自决，从而才可能是道义上最为可取和最符合正义原则的政治制度基础。诺齐克重构了洛克式古典自然法的“资格理论”，提出了“占有正义”，“交换正义”和“矫正正义”的三项互为补充的原则作为分配正义的政治哲学根基，并在此基础上展开了对罗尔斯《正义论》中两个正义原则的系统批判。诺齐克的工作为自由市场经济提供了道德哲学和政治哲学的基础，英国《电讯报》（Telegraph）曾经评论道：“可以毫不夸张的说，在历经从罗斯福新政到肯尼迪、约翰逊及卡特的国家福利主义世代后，诺齐克较任何人更能体现了新右派自由主义的精神，并将其领进里根及布什的年代。”尽管如此，诺齐克本人对于“右派自由主义”的标签却不以为然，在1978年纽约《时代周刊》（Time）的一篇文章上诺齐克说到：“右派人士喜爱支持自由市场的主张，但不喜欢涉及到支持诸如同性恋权利这样的个人自由的主张，而我则把它们看作一个相连接的整体……”。

诺奇克作为一个现代思想家，其文字倒是不大难懂。尤其这次又有外国老师的辅导，我很快就把这本书通读了下来。在读书班上，不时有学员提问。老师也是极其耐心的回答，这似乎倒是与我国的教学方式不大一样。我曾记得给我们辅导的是一位苏格兰的年轻老师，他的英语有比较重的高地口音，听起来还是有点吃力。不过总起来还是没有问题的。时隔将近十年这位老师的姓名我都给忘记了，但他那种诲人不倦的精神却牢牢刻在我的脑海里。大概是这位老师年轻的缘故，因而也就特别认真负责。

1999年，我正住在通县社科院的集体宿舍，翻译加拿大科学哲学家哈金（Ian Hacking）的《驯服偶然》（Taming the Chance）一书。阅读诺奇克的政治哲学著作对我的翻译工作颇有帮助。《驯服偶然》实际上就是从科学哲学的角度来对资本主义的发展与形成做出的另一种阐释，与马克思不同，哈金也是做了大量的统计学的社会史的调查，隶属于科学哲学的斯坦福学派（Stanford School）。哈金的这部著作的有意义之处就在于他把自然科学的方法应用到社会科学的研究中去，揭示出资本主义社会那种理想的纺锤形社会结构是如何形成的。花费了哈金十年的时间写出的成名作，从某种意义讲，与诺奇克的这本书有异曲同工之处。哈金是加拿大人，因此他不可能获全美国家图书奖。但是，他的《驯服偶然》一书却在世纪之交时被著名的《现代文库》（Modern Library）评为上个世纪100部用英语写成的最佳非小说类作品之一。如果说哈金的著作属于另类推理的科学哲学，而诺奇克则从英国古典政治理论中吸取了合理的成分，构建出自己的政治哲学理论。而我结业用英语写的小短文就是用哈金的思想套到诺奇克的理论中，也挺有意思。读书班结束后，邱教授又送给我了两本维特根斯坦（Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1889-1951）的著作，《逻辑哲学论》（Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus）和《哲学研究》（Philosophical Investigations），算是提携后学吧。

到了二十一世纪，社会已经产生了极大的变化，资本主义那种纺锤式的社会结构是否还能成立到成了问题。不久之前日本趋势学学者大前研一根据自己20年的观察和研究，又提出了所谓的“M型社会”的学说，说的是在全球化的趋势下，富者在数字世界中，大赚全世界的钱，财富快速攀升；另一方面，随着资源重新分配，原先的中产阶级因失去竞争力，而沦落到中下阶层，整个社会的财富分配，在中间这块，忽然有了很大的缺口，跟“M”的字型一样，整个世界分成了三块，左边的穷人变多，右边的富人也变多，但是中间这块，就忽然陷下去，然后不见了。因而，诺奇克的理论是否还成立呢？这似乎也是值得人们关注的问题。大前研一给那些自认是中产阶级的提出了三个问题：一、 房屋贷款造成你很大的生活压力吗（或是你根本不敢购置房产）？二、 你打算生儿育女吗（或是你连结婚也不敢）？三、 孩子未来的教育费用让你忧心忡忡吗（或是你连生孩子也不敢）？这三个问题，只要你有一个的答案是肯定的，那就意味着你不算是、不再是中产阶级了，富裕和安定，正离你愈来愈远……据大前研一的统计，2007年日本已有八成人口，沦入中低收入阶层。在这个新形态的社会里，如果企业与个人都不展开自救，政府又继续以错误的方式施政，恶性循环下，社会的失业率和物价将年年上扬，收入永远跟不上物价，整个社会对于未来，都将失去积极性。在日本号称“战略之父”大前研一关于M型社会的言论，已经不再是危言耸听。基于对日本社会的观察，大前研一认为日本已经进入了M型社会。事实上，美国比日本更早步入了M型社会。现在，美国最有钱的前1 ％家庭，只要拿出财富中仅1％的收入，等于社会底层两千万家庭的收入总和。有关数据显示：在美国，有85%以上的人开始沦为中下阶层。大前研一的学说说简单一些就是另外一种“马太效应”，即穷者越穷，富者越富的学术化表述。那么用诺奇克的学说又如何解决资本主义的这种矛盾呢？

下面这篇小短文就是我的当年的作业，至今还存在我计算机里，现在拿出来芹献，算是这篇回忆文字的结尾吧。

 Essay for 1999 Colloquium on Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia
(August 2-8, 1999, Beijing)
 Question 12: Income Tax is Forced Labor
Liu Gang
(Institute of Philosophy, CASS, 100732)

“Taxation from earnings of labor is on a par with forced labor”, be it true or false, the proposition is fantastic. What Nozick wants to express is the conflicts between the feelings of individuals and the being of state. It can be seen that no matter how important the rights of the individuals may be, it is impossible to go too far on the emphasis of separateness of persons.

For Nozick, individual rights have a paramount importance. At the very beginning of his book, we have the following statement: “Individuals have rights, and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights).” From this statement we could see that any thing violating the individual rights, such as slavery, forced labor etc., should be regarded wrong. And the individual absolutely owns himself and his labor. From this point, it can be seen that the individual also owns his fruits or products of his labor since he owns himself and his labor. State imposes taxes, i.e. taking away part of ones earnings of labor, more or less. So taxation is by no means a pleasure for an individual, for, in the sense of Locke, any labor concerned is unpleasant and nobody would willingly take part in labor, and the ownership of one’s fruit of labor is a compensation for his unpleasant feelings. Thus, we could conclude that taxation is similar to the forced labor, that is to say, the earnings taken away by the state could be converted into the unpleasant times during labor. Therefore, taxation is immoral for it violates the right of one’s complete ownership of property.

However, any individual is reluctant to see that he is living in an anarchy, for in such a state no right would be guaranteed. In order to avoid anarchy, state is necessary. For Nozick, what he justifies is “a minimal state”, which is “limited to the narrow functions”, such as protection against “force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts”, etc. Even if such a justifiable minimal state could not be run for its own sake, it needs money to maintain its narrow functions. Who would provide the money the state needs?

People could be roughly divided in two categories, prosperous (C1) and less prosperous (C2), which further falls into three groups, i.e., prosperous (G1), less prosperous (G2) and over prosperous (G3). In our sense, the ideal is that the prosperous group is bell curved. The less and over prosperous groups fall besides the prosperous. What we mean by “prosperous” is that the people in this group are able to lead a good life when they are put into a free competitive environment. The term “less prosperous” we employ denotes the people that fail in a free competitive environment due to various factors. In Nozick’s sense, they can be treated as unfortunate. What “over prosperous” means is that the people in this group are so strong that they think it unnecessary to seek protection from the state.

All people have the rights to life, liberty and property. However, only two groups might have property or steady income of their own, i.e., people in G1 and G3, while the people in G2 are supposed to be under a certain living standard.

It is assumed that G1 accounts for the majority of the people. It is they who might be afraid of anarchy. Therefore, they may be the proponents to call for a minimal state and to be the largest tax payer group in the state. However, what they face are other two groups, G2 and G3. For the former, they are not able to pay for the security the state provides for the present, and for the latter, they do not need the security protection of the state for the time being. As a result, people of G1 have to pay through taxation for the security of former on their unfortunate situation and redeem the right of self-defense from the latter in order to avoid their wrong doings with their self-defense right. On the other hand, in the case of G3, the people might also be afraid that some day they would fall into and G2, so that they should pay for it in advance.

Now the problem is that the unbalanced feelings of G1 and G3 upon G2, or prosperous C1 upon less prosperous C2, since the unfortunate people could also enjoy the security protection without any contribution. Therefore, to say taxation as forced labor is only the reflection of the unbalanced feelings for the tax payers. In respect to this point, they can also be regarded as unfortunate just as people in C2. Thus we have to reconcile the conflicts between the prosperous and less prosperous, for both of them are unfortunate for different reasons. The prosperous people are unfortunate for their ability and the less prosperous, for their inability.

Do people in C2 feel at ease and justified when they enjoy security protection from the state without any contribution? According to Nozick’s theory of entitlement, it could be assumed that the prosperous have their property justified or unjustified. Thus the security that C2 enjoy could be regarded as a kind of property transfer or rectification to some extent. Thus there would not be any unease for them.

The conclusion we have drawn is that it is impossible to attain complete separateness and distinctiveness of individuals even if in a minimal state. Therefore the strong of version of Nozick’s absolute ownership of oneself would be infringed.