Civil Disobedience

亨利·大卫·梭罗/Henry David Thoreau

亨利·大卫·梭罗（1817—1862），生于马萨诸塞州康科德，散文家，诗人，自然主义者，改革家，哲学家。他的作品《瓦尔登湖》于1854年出版，百年来风行天下。他强调亲近自然、学习自然、热爱自然，追求“简单些，再简单些”的质朴生活，提倡短暂人生因思想丰盈而臻于完美。

我由衷地赞同这一名言——管得最少的政府是最好的政府。我还希望看到这一名言能被迅速而彻底地执行。我相信，在它执行后，其最终结果将是——最好的政府是不进行任何管理的政府。只要人们对此有所期待，他们就会得到这样的政府。政府充其量不过是一种权宜之计，然而大部分政府有时候——甚至所有的政府通常——都是不明智的，公民们对设置常备军的反对意见很多、很强烈，而且理应占主导地位，这种意见最终可能转变为对常设政府的反对意见，因为常备军队只不过是常设政府的一支胳臂。政府本身也只不过是由人民选择来执行他们意志的形式，在人民来不及通过它来执行意志之前，它同样也很容易被滥用。请看看当前的墨西哥战争，它就是少数人将常设政府当作工具的结果，因为一开始人民就不同意采取这种做法。

目前的美国政府——它不过是一种传统形式，尽管其历史短暂，但它却竭力使自己完整地届届相传，可是每届政府却都会丧失掉一些自身的诚实和正直。除此之外它还能是什么呢？它的朝气和力量还顶不上一个活人，因为一个人就能随心所欲地摆布它。对于人民来说，政府是杆木头枪，倘若人们真要使用它互相厮杀，它就注定要裂开。不过，尽管如此，它仍然是必不可少的，因为人们需要某种复杂机器之类的玩意儿，需要听它发出的噪音，借此满足他们有关政府的概念。于是，政府的存在表明，为了自己的利益，一个人完全可以借助政府来利用和欺骗人民，甚至是自己。我们大家都必须承认，这真了不起。不过，这种政府从未主动促进过任何事业，它只是欣然地偏离自己的职能。它没有捍卫国家的自由，没有解决西部问题，没有教化人民。迄今为止，所有的成就全都是由美国人民的传统性格完成的，而且，假如政府不曾从中作梗的话，还可能取得更大的成就。因为政府是一种权宜之计，通过它人们可以欣然地不相互来往。而且，如上所说，最便利的政府也就是最不大被治理的政府。假如不是印度橡胶所造成的刺激，商业与贸易绝无可能跃过议员们没完没了地设置的路障而得以发展；如果我们完全以议员们行动的效果，而不是以他们行动的意图来评价的话，那么他们就理所当然地被视作如同在铁路上设路障的恶作剧者，并应受到相应的惩罚。

不过说实在的，作为一个公民，我不像那些自称是无政府主义的人一样，我要求的不是立即取消政府，而是要立即有个好一点的政府。让每一个人都表态：什么样的政府才能赢得他的尊敬，而这也为获得这种政府迈出了第一步。

毕竟，当权力掌握在人民手中的时候，多数派将拥有，而且是长期拥有统治权，真正的原因不是因为他们是正义的，也不是因为这在少数派看来是最公正的，而是因为他们在物质上是最强大的。但是，一个由多数派做出所有决定的政府，是不可能建立在正义之上的，即使在人们对其有所了解的情况下都办不到。在一个政府中，让良知而不是多数派对公正与谬误真正做出决定，与此同时，对那些可以运用便利法则解决的问题做出决定，这难道就不可行吗？公民就必须暂时或最低限度地把自己的良知托付给议员吗？那么，为什么每个人还都有良知呢？我认为，我们首先必须是人，其次才是臣民。培养人们像尊重正义那样尊重法律是不可取的。我有权承担的唯一义务是不论何时都从事我认为是正义的事。

……

政府的权威，即使是我乐意服从的权威——因为我很乐于服从比我渊博、比我能干的人，而且在许多事情上，我甚至乐于服从那些不是非常渊博，也不是非常能干的人——也并非真正的权威。从严格、正义的角度来讲，权威必须获得被治理者的认可或赞成，也就是除非我同意，否则它没有任何理由对我的身心和财产行使权力。从君主集权制到君主立宪制，从君主立宪制到民主共和制的进步是朝着真正尊重个人的方向来进步的，甚至智慧的中国哲人都知道个人是一个王国的基础。难道民主，我们所知道的民主，就是政府进步的尽头了吗？难道政府就不能进一步承认和安排人的权利了吗？除非国家承认个人具有更高的、独立的权力——而且国家的权力和权威源自于个人的权力——并且在对待个人权力方面采取相应的措施，否则真正自由开明的国家就不可能出现。我常常高兴地设想国家的最终形式，它将公正地对待所有的人，尊重个人就像尊重邻居一样。如果有人履行了邻居和同胞的职责，但它却退避三舍，冷眼旁观，不为其所容纳的话，它就寝食难安。如果一个国家能够结出这样的果实，并且能让它快速成熟的话，那么它就为建立一个更加完美、更加辉煌的国家铺平了道路。那是我一直梦想的，但在任何地方都没有看到过的国家。

I heartily accept the motto， "That government is best which governs least"， and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out， it finally amounts to this， which also I believe， "That government is best which governs not at all"， and when men are prepared for it， that will be the kind of government which the will have.Government is at best but an expedient；but most governments are usually， and all governments are sometimes， inexpedient.The objections which have been brought against a standing army， and they are many and weighty， and deserve to prevail， may also at last be brought against a standing government.The standing army is only an arm of the standing government.The government itself， which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will， is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people canact through it.Witness the present Mexican war， the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool；for in the outset， the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government—what is it but a tradition， though a recent one， endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity， but each instant losing some of its integrity？It has not the vitality and force of a single living man；for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves.But it is not the less necessary for this；for the people must have some complicated machinery or other， and hear its din， to satisfy that idea of government which they have.Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed upon， even impose on themselves， for their own advantage.It is excellent， we must all allow.Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise， but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way.It does not keep the country free.It does not settle the West.It does not educate.The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished；and it would have done somewhat more， if the government had not sometimes got in its way.For government is an expedient， by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone；and， as has been said， when it is most expedient， the governed are most let alone by it.Trade and commerce， if they were not madeof Indian rubber， would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way；and if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions， they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

But， to speak practically and as a citizen， unlike those who call themselves non-govenmment men， I ask for， not at one no government， but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect， and that will be one step toward obtaining it.

After all， the practical reason why， when the power is once in the hands of the people， a majority are permitted， and for a long period continue， to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right， nor because this seems fairest to the minority， but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases can not be based on justice， even as far as men understand it.Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong， but conscience？—inwhich majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable？Must the citizen ever for a moment， or in the least degree， resign his conscience to the legislator？Why has every man a conscience then？I think that we should be men first， and subjects afterward.It is not desirable tocultivate a respect for the law， so much as for the right.The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

…

The authority of government， even such as I am willing to submit to—for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I， and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well—is still an impure one：to be strictly just， it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it.The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy， from a limited monarchy to a democracy， is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire.Is a democracy， such as we know it， the last improvement possible in government？Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man？There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power， from which all its own power and authority are derived， and treats him accordingly.I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men， and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor；which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it， not meddling with it， norembraced by it， who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men.A State which bore this kind of fruit， and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened， would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State， which I have also imagined， but not yet anywhere seen.