Jamal Greene on Reconceiving Rights (Ep. 151)
Hello, everyone, and welcome back to Conversations with Tyler.
大家好，欢迎回到《与泰勒对话》。
Today I’m here with Jamal Greene, who is a professor of law at Columbia University.
今天我和贾马尔·格林一起来，他是哥伦比亚大学法学教授。
He recently has published a very interesting book called How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart.
他最近出版了一本非常有趣的书，名为《权利是如何出错的：为什么我们对权利的痴迷正在撕裂美国》。
Jamal, welcome.
贾马尔，欢迎。
Thank you.
谢谢。
Good to be here.
很高兴来到这里。
We will get to rights, but first I have some questions about baseball.
我们会恢复正常，但首先我有一些关于棒球的问题。
Okay.
好的。
Using law and economics reasoning, how would you improve the current organization or laws surrounding baseball?
使用法律和经济学推理，您将如何改进当前围绕棒球的组织或法律？
Well, I wish I could answer that question better than I can, and part of it is I don’t pay much attention to baseball anymore.
好吧，我希望我能比我能更好地回答这个问题，部分原因是我不再关注棒球了。
I do think that sometimes — and I’m also not the best law and economics reasoner, but I can try — I think sometimes baseball’s incentives are misaligned, as far as I can tell, at least.
我确实认为有时 —— 我也不是最好的法律和经济学推理者，但我可以尝试 —— 我认为有时棒球的激励措施是错位的，至少据我所知。
I used to be a baseball reporter, and I worked for a magazine that was doing exactly what major league baseball is doing, which is having its audience get older and older.
我曾经是一名棒球记者，我为一家杂志工作，该杂志所做的正是美国职业棒球大联盟正在做的事情，那就是让读者变得越来越老。
There are a couple of strategies one can employ in response to that.
人们可以采取几种策略来应对这一问题。
You can change the product so that you try to attract younger people and different people, or you can cling to your old subscriber base in some sense.
你可以改变产品，以便尝试吸引年轻人和不同的人，或者你可以在某种意义上坚持你的老用户群。
The structure of baseball is not really well suited to the modern age, and they should hold on as long as they can to the people who really care about it.
棒球的结构不太适合现代，他们应该尽可能地坚持到真正关心它的人身上。
I don’t think you’re going to move second base a little bit or put in some robot umps, and then you’ll get 18-year-olds getting into baseball.
我不认为你会稍微移动二垒或放入一些机器人 umps，然后你就会让 18 岁的孩子进入棒球。
You have to see the writing on the wall.
你必须看到墙上的文字。
Does that mean it’s a bigger problem than it used to be that baseball has its historic exemption from antitrust law?
这是否意味着棒球历史上享有反垄断法豁免权，这是一个比以前更大的问题？
Well, I don’t think baseball should have an exemption from antitrust law.
嗯，我认为棒球不应该受到反垄断法的豁免。
I suppose if it’s less popular than it once was, then whatever justification there is is diminished.
我想，如果它不再像以前那样受欢迎，那么任何合理性都会减弱。
That sounds right to me.
这对我来说听起来不错。
What do you think is the biggest general problem with law and economics style of reasoning?
您认为法律和经济学推理方式的最大普遍问题是什么？
I think as long as its limits are understood, it’s not a problem, just as any other form of reasoning has its limits.
我认为只要理解它的局限性，就不是问题，就像任何其他形式的推理都有其局限性一样。
Sometimes we confuse internal debates about interpretation, internal debates about the right answer to legal problems with the external question of what’s the right answer in this case?
有时我们会将关于解释的内部辩论、关于法律问题正确答案的内部辩论与“本案中正确答案是什么”的外部问题混为一谈。
What I mean by that is that it’s perfectly sensible to say that the right answer to a legal question should be specified through law and economics, so long as you understand that other methods are also legitimate, and you’re actually trying to stake a claim within a conversation about the method.
我的意思是，只要您了解其他方法也是合法的，并且您实际上试图在有关该方法的对话中提出主张，那么说法律问题的正确答案应该通过法律和经济学来指定是完全明智的。
So long as people understand those limits, it’s all fair game.
只要人们了解这些限制，一切都是公平的。
What’s the best way to improve America’s legal education system?
改善美国法律教育体系的最佳方法是什么？
We put you in charge.
我们让你负责。
What do you change?
你改变什么？
I think there’s a small thing I would change — and this sounds really small, but it seems so straightforward to me.
我想我会改变一件小事 ——这听起来很小，但对我来说似乎很简单。
Law students shouldn’t be buying their own textbooks separate from the ordinary expenses.
法学院学生不应该在日常开支之外单独购买自己的教科书。
You pay a tuition fee, and the price of textbooks should just be diffused through tuition costs, and the ways in which people pay for those should also pay for their textbooks, but that’s a small thing.
你付了学费，教科书的价格应该通过学费来分散，人们支付这些费用的方式也应该支付他们的教科书，但这是一件小事。
The bigger thing I would change is the calendar for professional hiring in law.
我要改变的更重要的事情是法律专业招聘的日历。
This is a little bit esoteric, but it matters a lot to our students.
这有点深奥，但对我们的学生来说很重要。
If you want to go into a job at a major law firm, and you go to a good law school, those jobs get offered to you at a time when you have no other alternatives.
如果你想在一家大型律师事务所工作，并且你去了一所好的法学院，那么当你别无选择时，这些工作就会提供给你。
And so, regardless of one’s individual preferences, it makes no sense to turn down those jobs when you actually have no alternative.
因此，无论一个人的个人喜好如何，当你实际上别无选择时，拒绝这些工作是没有意义的。
I think that creates a lot of distortions, where you end up with people who are at these firms who don’t want to be there.
我认为这会造成很多扭曲，最终导致这些公司里的人不想在那里。
And it biases the market so that people who want to go into public interest, for example, are the ones who are able to take that risk on, which is not a very good match between who’s genuinely interested in alternative avenues and who just can’t afford to take certain kinds of risks.
它使市场产生偏见，例如，那些想要参与公共利益的人就是那些能够承担这种风险的人，这在真正对替代途径感兴趣的人和无法承担某些风险的人之间并不是很好的匹配。
At least in my world, which is the world of a certain kind of law school, that’s a major problem.
至少在我的世界里，也就是某种法学院的世界里，这是一个大问题。
If we made textbooks free, wouldn’t either tuition go up or the quality go down in some other way?
如果我们免费提供教科书，学费会不会上涨，或者质量会以其他方式下降？
At least with textbooks, there is a built-in price discrimination, so poorer students can buy used copies or older editions.
至少对于教科书来说，存在内在的价格歧视，因此贫困的学生可以购买二手书或旧版本。
But if the quality of food in the cafeteria declines or tuition goes up, everyone bears that, and in that sense, the change would be regressive.
但如果食堂的食物质量下降或者学费上涨，每个人都会承受，从这个意义上说，这种变化将是倒退的。
That’s possible.
这是可能的。
I think it would be folded into tuition.
我觉得这笔钱可以算进学费里。
Part of it is the students make different choices when they perceive it to be something that’s a baked-in cost versus perceiving it to be something that they have to pay for separately.
部分原因是，当学生认为这是一项固定成本与认为这是他们必须单独支付的费用时，他们会做出不同的选择。
If some students are buying used books or some students are buying only digital copies just because of their perception of the cost, that seems to me to have some real unfairness to it.
如果一些学生购买二手书，或者一些学生仅仅因为他们对成本的看法而只购买数字副本，那么在我看来，这确实有一些不公平。
Now, it’s possible that there’s not that big of a difference; it’s not a significant enough difference that we should care about the distributional consequences.
现在，可能差别并不那么大了。这个差异还不够显着，以至于我们不应该关心分配结果。
But I tend to think that, just as other law school costs are not à la carte, textbooks shouldn’t be either.
但我倾向于认为，就像其他法学院的费用不是按菜单点菜一样，教科书也不应该是按菜单点菜的。
You could say the same thing about courses, right?
关于课程你也可以这么说，对吧？
Sure.
当然。
How would you improve the LSAT system?
你会如何改进 LSAT 系统？
I think I would just use it less.
我想我会少用它。
I don’t know that I would eliminate it entirely, but the idea that people should be admitted to law school, 50 percent or 60 percent or something based on LSAT scores, seems to me likely to be problematic.
我不知道我会完全消除它，但是人们应该被法学院录取的想法，50％或60％或基于LSAT分数的东西，在我看来可能是有问题的。
There are problems on either end if you get rid of tests like that.
如果你放弃这样的测试，那么两端都会出现问题。
People who are very good at succeeding at things are going to succeed in other ways, and so there is a certain transparency about the LSAT that I think is maybe not something you’d want to fully eliminate.
那些非常擅长在某件事上取得成功的人也会在其他方面取得成功，因此 LSAT 具有一定的透明度，我认为你可能不想完全消除这种透明度。
But it does bother me that your performance on a three-hour test has such a profound influence on which schools one is able to go to.
但令我困扰的是，你在三小时考试中的表现对一个人能够去哪所学校有着如此深远的影响。
It would surprise me if there are not better ways of doing it, but I’m not deep enough in admissions offices to launch a strong criticism.
如果没有更好的方法，我会感到惊讶，但我对招生办公室的了解还不够深入，无法提出强烈的批评。
Do you have a sense there’s a better predictor of success as a lawyer?
您是否认为有更好的方法来预测律师的成功？
Well, schools are trying to optimize for different things.
嗯，学校正在尝试针对不同的事情进行优化。
I don’t know that there’s any reason schools need to pick students on the basis of who they think will be good lawyers as such.
我不知道学校有什么理由需要根据他们认为谁会成为优秀律师来挑选学生。
Schools have a lot of different goals that they might have in mind.
学校可能有很多不同的目标。
They might want to have a certain community on campus.
他们可能想在校园内建立一个特定的社区。
They might want to produce certain kinds of lawyers, which isn’t just about an abstract view of lawyerly quality, so it just depends on what the output is.
他们可能想要培养某些类型的律师，这不仅仅是对律师质量的抽象看法，所以这仅仅取决于产出是什么。
That’s going to vary both across schools and within schools, right?
这在学校之间和学校内部都会有所不同，对吗？
You’re looking for a certain professional diversity in addition to a Tom Cruise at the firm — top-notch lawyer.
除了公司里的汤姆·克鲁斯（Tom Cruise）之外，你还在寻找某种职业多样性——一流的律师。
I do think that the LSAT predicts for a certain lawyerly skill.
我确实认为 LSAT 预测的是某种律师技能。
I don’t doubt that, but what I do doubt — and I think this is true to the internal policy choices of law schools — is that’s not the only thing they’re trying to produce.
我对此并不怀疑，但我确实怀疑的是——而且我认为法学院的内部政策选择也是如此——这并不是他们试图创造的唯一东西。
Should law reviews be edited by students?
法律评论应该由学生编辑吗？
Yes.
是的。
I don’t —
我不 ——
Got to be good at it, right?
一定要擅长，对吧？
What do the students know?
学生们知道什么？
They probably couldn’t publish in those law reviews themselves.
他们自己可能无法在这些法律评论中发表文章。
Well, I think that there’s something to be said for peer review of which articles actually get selected.
嗯，我认为对于哪些文章真正被选中的同行评审是有话可说的。
And that’s a different function of law reviews — selecting articles — than the editing process, where I actually think students, on balance — they’re not always good at it, of course, but on balance, I think they add a lot of value to the editing process.
这是法律评论的不同功能——“选择文章”——与编辑过程不同，我实际上认为学生，总的来说，当然，他们并不总是擅长于此，但总的来说，我认为他们为编辑过程增加了很多价值。
They fact check, for example.
例如，他们进行事实核查。
We resist it because we think we know it all, but it’s actually very valuable.
我们抵制它，因为我们认为我们知道一切，但它实际上非常有价值。
When you see some institution that seems to be inefficient, you have to think about what it’s actually trying to produce.
当你看到某个机构似乎效率低下时，你必须考虑它实际上想要创造什么。
Part of what law reviews are doing is giving a certain kind of experience to law students.
法律评论所做的部分工作是为法学院学生提供某种体验。
They’re not just about producing scholarship.
他们不仅仅是为了提供奖学金。
The second thing I’d say is, there’s always going to be a tradeoff.
我要说的第二件事是，总会有一个权衡。
You could have highly professionalized, highly elite gatekeepers.
你可以拥有高度专业化、高度精英的看门人。
Then you keep out a lot of good stuff because it doesn’t go through the right gate.
然后你就会把很多好东西拒之门外，因为它没有通过正确的大门。
Then on the other end, you have not very efficient gatekeepers.
另一方面，你没有非常高效的看门人。
You have lots and lots of law reviews, and it’s hard to do quality control, but you get a lot more stuff out there.
你有很多很多的法律评论，很难进行质量控制，但你可以得到更多的东西。
Given that law always has one foot in practice and one foot in the academy, I think there’s really a lot of value in getting a lot of stuff out there within our particular field.
鉴于法律总是一只脚在实践中，一只脚在学术中，我认为在我们特定的领域内提供大量的东西确实有很大的价值。
Should there be blind review of the articles?
是否应该对文章进行盲审？
That is, the editors don’t know who wrote them.
也就是说，编辑们不知道是谁写的。
I think, generally, that’s a good practice.
我认为，总的来说，这是一个很好的做法。
Given the volume of law review submissions, it maybe can be a little bit hard to actually operationalize that, but it’s a good aspiration.
考虑到法律审查意见的数量，实际实施起来可能有点困难，但这是一个很好的愿望。
Just make people send it in without the name on the cover.
只要让人们寄出去，封面上不写名字就可以了。
You could have the system set up.
你可以把系统设置一下。
Some assistant handles the initial submission.
一些助理负责处理初始提交。
Then it’s handed to the editors who, this way, can’t look and see, “Oh, this is a famous person.
然后交给编辑们，这样他们就看不到了，“哦，这是一个名人。
This is Richard Posner.
这是理查德·波斯纳。
Of course, we have to take it.” They judge it more on its merits.
当然，我们必须接受它。”他们更多地根据其优点来判断它。
Yes.
是的。
You could do a version of that.
你可以做一个版本。
Given the citation practices in law, it’s hard to fully anonymize, but I think that’s the right aspiration.
考虑到法律上的引用实践，很难完全匿名，但我认为这是正确的愿望。
When I was a law review editor, we mostly did that at Yale.
当我担任法律评论编辑时，我们主要在耶鲁大学这样做。
A number of law reviews try to do that.
许多法律评论试图做到这一点。
Sometimes, again, it’s hard to avoid, but I think that’s the right goal.
有时，这又很难避免，但我认为这是正确的目标。
What is the question we should be asking Supreme Court nominees that we’re not asking them now?
我们应该向最高法院提名人提出哪些我们现在没有问的问题？
Well, “should” is a funny word.
嗯，“应该”是一个有趣的词。
In an ideal world because the confirmation process .
在理想的世界中，因为确认过程。
.
。
.
。
Maybe we should be asking them nothing because the confirmation process doesn’t actually serve that much of an informational value.
也许我们不应该问他们什么，因为确认过程实际上并没有多大的信息价值。
It’s political posturing and so forth.
这是政治姿态等等。
But if one were actually to try to design a confirmation process that was useful, I think you would just ask them their views about cases that have been decided.
但如果有人真的想设计一个有用的确认流程，我想你只需询问他们对已决定案件的看法即可。
Ask them if those cases were correct.
询问他们这些案例是否正确。
They say that biases them in some way, or conveys bias.
他们说这在某种程度上让他们产生了偏见，或者传达了偏见。
I just don’t buy that.
我只是不相信这一点。
One can have a view about something decided in the past and change one’s view based on new information.
人们可以对过去决定的某件事有看法，并根据新信息改变自己的看法。
There’s no necessary bias.
没有必要的偏见。
The idea that they haven’t thought about these things or have no formed views, or that we shouldn’t be aware of what their views are, seems to me to be profoundly undemocratic.
在我看来，他们没有考虑过这些事情或者没有形成观点，或者我们不应该知道他们的观点是什么，这种想法是非常不民主的。
If I were God and could control the process, I would have a conversation about the Supreme Court’s docket.
如果我是上帝并且可以控制整个过程，我就会就最高法院的案卷进行对话。
But the court itself is undemocratic by design, so it’s funny for me to hear you say some practice in the confirmation process is undemocratic.
但法院本身在设计上是不民主的，所以听到你说确认过程中的某些做法是不民主的，我觉得很有趣。
Isn’t that the whole point?
这不是重点吗？
Well, the confirmation process is not undemocratic.
嗯，确认过程并非不民主。
The way in which they are chosen is not undemocratic.
他们的选择方式并非不民主。
Yes, their decisions are not democratic in the same way in which elections are democratic, although they do vote.
是的，尽管他们确实投票，但他们的决定并不像选举是民主的那样民主。
In that sense they’re democratic, but they’re political appointees.
从这个意义上说，他们是民主的，但他们是政治任命者。
They are political appointees for a reason because they make law for society.
他们被政治任命是有原因的，因为他们为社会制定法律。
People who do that should be chosen through democratic means, and they are chosen in that way.
这样做的人应该通过民主方式选出，他们就是通过这种方式选出的。
As long as we’re talking about the selection process, yes, we should know who they are.
只要我们谈论选择过程，是的，我们应该知道他们是谁。
We should know what their views are.
我们应该知道他们的观点是什么。
We should debate them, and we should make decisions on the basis of the conclusions we reach.
我们应该对它们进行辩论，我们应该根据我们得出的结论做出决定。
On average, how many non-judges should be on the Supreme Court at any point in time?
平均而言，在任何时候最高法院应该有多少非法官？
Basically, we’re picking from former judges, right?
基本上，我们是从前评委中挑选的，对吧？
Why do that?
为什么要这么做？
Yes, I thought you were asking something slightly different, which is whether they should be lawyers or not —
是的，我以为你问的问题略有不同，那就是他们是否应该成为律师 ——
Oh, that too, of course.
哦，当然也是这样。
— which is another question.
——这是另一个问题了。
I don’t have an a priori answer to that.
我对此没有先验的答案。
I do think there’s value in having people who are lawyers.
我确实认为拥有律师是有价值的。
I think I’m okay with mostly lawyers or maybe even all lawyers, but they don’t have to come from judging.
我认为我对大多数律师甚至所有律师都没有意见，但他们不一定来自评判。
Elena Kagan didn’t come from judging, and she’s a terrific Supreme Court justice.
埃琳娜·卡根不是法官出身，她是一位出色的最高法院法官。
Hugo Black didn’t come from judging.
雨果·布莱克并非来自评判。
He was a terrific Supreme Court justice.
他是一位出色的最高法院法官。
People who come from politics, people who come from academia, people who come from other forms of lawyering but not straight from the judiciary — it’s a different kind of judicial role at the Supreme Court.
来自政界的人、来自学术界的人、来自其他形式的律师但不是直接来自司法部门的人——这是最高法院的一种不同的司法角色。
The cases are closer.
案件更接近。
They’re not strictly bound by precedent.
它们不受先例的严格约束。
They are often deciding serious political, moral questions, so I think having some exposure to other forms of decision-making is perfectly sensible.
他们经常决定严肃的政治、道德问题，所以我认为接触其他形式的决策是完全明智的。
It happens so rarely.
这种情况很少发生。
When was the last time a non-lawyer was on the Supreme Court?
非律师最后一次出现在最高法院是什么时候？
Oh, a non-lawyer?
哦，非律师？
There haven’t been any non-lawyers on the Supreme Court.
最高法院没有任何非律师。
Ever?
曾经？
There have been people who didn’t complete law school, but back then you could become a lawyer in other ways, so no one in the US Supreme Court who’s not understood to be a lawyer at the time.
有些人没有完成法学院的学业，但当时你可以通过其他方式成为一名律师，所以当时美国最高法院的人都被认为是一名律师。
I don’t think it would be disastrous to have a non-lawyer on the court.
我不认为法庭上有非律师会是灾难性的。
There are non-lawyers on the Judiciary Committee, some of whom ask good questions, who are smart people, who could figure it out.
司法委员会中有非律师的人，其中一些人提出了很好的问题，他们是聪明人，能够解决问题。
But a lot of the court’s docket is quite technical.
但法庭的很多备审案卷都非常技术性。
I happen to think that the court should have panels.
我碰巧认为法院应该设立专门小组。
Not everyone should hear every case.
并不是每个人都应该听取每一个案例。
If you did something like that, maybe you could have a non-lawyer panel or something.
如果你做了类似的事情，也许你可以有一个非律师小组或其他什么。
Outside of the big ticket — your affirmative action cases, your abortion cases, these big controversial things — I don’t think you need lawyers to decide those questions.
除了大问题之外——“你的平权行动案件、堕胎案件、这些有争议的大事”——“我认为你不需要律师来决定这些问题。
But I do think it’s pretty hard to be a non-lawyer and decide a technical statutory interpretation case.
但我确实认为，作为一名非律师来裁决技术性的法定解释案件是相当困难的。
Isn’t that a main way in which the court is especially undemocratic?
这难道不是法院特别不民主的一个主要方式吗？
That is, most people in America are not lawyers.
也就是说，大多数美国人都不是律师。
Just a general sense, whether correct or not, that the law plays too strong a role in society.
只是一种普遍的感觉，无论正确与否，法律在社会中发挥的作用太强大了。
Many people will say there are too many lawyers.
很多人会说律师太多了。
There are lawyer jokes.
有律师笑话。
Especially if we’re going to expand the numbers on the Supreme Court, as you’ve argued for, wouldn’t that be a great time to introduce, say, three to five non-lawyers?
特别是如果我们要扩大最高法院的人数，正如您所主张的那样，那不是引入三到五名非律师的好时机吗？
Have a philosopher.
有一个哲学家。
Have an economist.
有一个经济学家。
I wouldn’t be opposed to that, necessarily.
我不一定会反对这一点。
I’d have to think about it more, but I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to that.
我必须多考虑一下，但我不一定会反对。
Again, I do think there are a number of kinds of cases the court hears that are not well suited to people who are not lawyers.
再说一遍，我确实认为法院审理的许多案件不太适合非律师人士。
There are also cases the court hears that are not well suited to people who are lawyers, or at least not uniquely suited or especially suited to people who are lawyers.
法院审理的一些案件也不太适合律师，或者至少不是特别适合或特别适合律师。
I would not be totally opposed to that idea.
我不会完全反对这个想法。
I resist a little bit the idea that the reason for that is grounded in democracy in some serious sense, or representation in some sense, insofar as I do think that the court plays a role that’s different from other democratic institutions.
我有点抵制这种观点，即其原因是基于某种严肃意义上的民主，或者某种意义上的代表权，因为我确实认为法院发挥着与其他民主机构不同的作用。
Again, I don’t think it has to be played by lawyers.
再说一次，我认为这不必由律师来扮演。
I think that’s a fair criticism.
我认为这是一个公平的批评。
I’m not just saying it doesn’t have to be, but why, clearly, shouldn’t it always be played by lawyers?
我并不是说它不必如此，但显然，为什么它不应该总是由律师来玩呢？
If I look at antitrust cases, it seems to me a pretty high percentage of justices, historically, don’t understand antitrust very well because they’re not economists, which is fine, not to be held against them.
如果我看一下反垄断案件，在我看来，历史上有相当高比例的法官不太了解反垄断，因为他们不是经济学家，这很好，不要对他们不利。
Again, it’s an argument for having people with, say, business experience on the court, people who work with children.
再说一次，这是一个争论，要求让有商业经验的人在法庭上工作，比如与儿童一起工作的人。
I think that’s fair.
我认为这是公平的。
I wouldn’t want to get too specialized, but there’s a good argument that we’re already too specialized in a technical legal sense.
我不想太专业化，但有一个很好的论点是，我们在技术法律意义上已经太专业化了。
I believe — and I’ve said before in writing — that the court should take what we call social facts or legislative facts into consideration more in their decision-making.
我相信——而且我之前已经书面说过——法院在做出决定时应该更多地考虑我们所谓的社会事实或立法事实。
They should be more empirical than they are.
他们应该比实际情况更加经验主义。
It makes sense to accompany that kind of call with serious consideration of whether some of them should have other competencies.
在进行此类电话会议时，认真考虑其中一些人是否应该具备其他能力是有意义的。
I think that’s perfectly fair.
我认为这是完全公平的。
To turn to your book, How Rights Went Wrong by Jamal Greene.
请参阅贾马尔·格林 (Jamal Greene) 所著的《权利如何错了》(How Rights Went Wrong)。
The same arguments can be found in your articles.
在您的文章中也可以找到相同的论点。
You argue that the American conception of rights is quite different from that, say, found in Western Europe or, indeed, other parts of the world.
您认为美国的权利观念与西欧乃至世界其他地区的权利观念截然不同。
What is it, in your opinion, that is upstream of that American difference?
在您看来，美国差异的上游是什么？
Is it that we’re a more ideological nation, and thus, we put a lot more emphasis on a smaller number of rights?
是不是因为我们是一个更加意识形态化的国家，因此我们更加重视较少数量的权利？
What’s the cultural determinant of the difference that you’re pinpointing?
您所指出的差异的文化决定因素是什么？
Well, there are multiple cultural determinants.
嗯，有多种文化决定因素。
I think our experience with racists maybe — if I had to point to a single one, it would be that insofar as we associate rights with a particular history of race-based pathology, that people have rights in the same way that African Americans have rights to not be forced to go to a segregated school.
我认为我们与种族主义者的经历也许是——如果我必须指出一个问题，那就是，只要我们将权利与基于种族的病理学的特定历史联系起来，人们就拥有权利，就像非裔美国人有权不被迫去种族隔离的学校一样。
That association of rights with pathological governance, I think, leads to a certain kind of binary understanding of what rights can do.
我认为，权利与病态治理的联系导致了对权利能做什么的某种二元理解。
In my view, rights, in a constitutional sense, can arise in lots of situations, whether the government’s acting well or not acting well, because rights, I think, are just a byproduct of pluralism.
在我看来，宪法意义上的权利可以在很多情况下出现，无论政府表现得好还是不好，因为我认为权利只是多元化的副产品。
Other countries don’t have the same historical baggage that we do when it comes to race.
在种族问题上，其他国家没有我们这样的历史包袱。
On the one hand, we think that rights should be understood in really strong terms.
一方面，我们认为应该从真正强有力的角度来理解权利。
And on the other hand, there are a bunch of economic rights that, within our legal culture, are understood as being very, very weak.
另一方面，在我们的法律文化中，有很多经济权利被认为非常非常弱。
You have this kind of binary, where you’re choosing whether you’re talking about something very weak or something very strong, instead of talking about rights much more contextually.
你有这种二元论，你可以选择是谈论非常弱的东西还是非常强的东西，而不是更多地根据上下文谈论权利。
There seems to be plenty of American exceptionalism that extends far beyond race or doesn’t boil down to race, or it pops up in issues that are quite non-racial or appear to be non-racial.
似乎有很多美国例外论远远超出了种族范围，或者不归结为种族问题，或者出现在完全非种族或看似非种族的问题中。
Race might be one factor, but doesn’t it stem from something very fundamental in the nature of American society?
种族可能是一个因素，但这难道不是源于美国社会本质中非常基本的东西吗？
We’re more literal.
我们更注重字面意义。
We hold ideas more strongly.
我们更坚定地持有想法。
We’re more suspicious of state power.
我们对国家权力更加怀疑。
All those other non-racial upstream factors — is it that you want to change and reform those?
所有那些非种族的上游因素 —— 是你想要改变和改革的吗？
Or you want to change our notion of rights but keep all the upstream factors in place?
或者您想改变我们的权利观念，但保留所有上游因素？
Well, I think the upstream factors are maybe a bit more contingent than you’re suggesting.
嗯，我认为上游因素可能比你建议的更偶然。
The way in which Americans understood rights before the middle of the 20th century was quite different from how we understand rights today.
20世纪中叶之前美国人对权利的理解与我们今天对权利的理解有很大不同。
We often tie our rights arrangements to the founders, or to the Bill of Rights or something in our ancient constitutional arrangements.
我们经常将我们的权利安排与创始人、权利法案或我们古代宪法安排中的某些内容联系起来。
But that’s certainly not how the founders thought about rights, not in the quasi-absolute sense that we do.
但这肯定不是创始人对权利的看法，也不是我们所理解的准绝对意义上的权利。
I do think suspicion of state power is accurate.
我确实认为对国家权力的怀疑是正确的。
As to Americans, I think we’re more classically liberal-minded than Europeans, say, but I don’t think that that’s an obstacle to saying .
至于美国人，我认为我们比欧洲人更具古典自由主义思想，但我不认为这会成为说的障碍。
.
。
.
。
Part of what I’m urging is a recognition that rights pluralism is inseparable from pluralism, full stop.
我所敦促的部分内容是认识到权利多元化与多元化密不可分，句号。
Part of it is being accepting of pluralism in a way that — I think it’s right — that there’s partly a culture of resistance of that, but I think that’s destructive.
部分原因在于以某种方式接受多元化，“我认为这是正确的”，部分程度上存在着对此的抵制文化，但我认为这是破坏性的。
Pluralism is something we need to embrace, and embracing it requires us to understand that we’re different from each other in important ways, and we have to reconcile those differences.
多元化是我们需要拥抱的东西，拥抱它需要我们理解我们在重要方面彼此不同，并且我们必须调和这些差异。
At least as you state the argument in that paragraph, it would seem you’d be sympathetic to a lot more federalism, which could allow for the creation of a lot more rights of intermediate strength, a lot of diversity, pluralistic approaches across different states as, say, we’ve seen with the treatment of COVID.
至少当你在该段中陈述论点时，你似乎会同情更多的联邦制，这可以允许在不同州创造更多中等强度的权利、多种多样性、多元化的方法，就像我们在新冠病毒治疗中看到的那样。
But you don’t seem to go in that direction.
但你似乎并没有朝那个方向走。
Why not?
为什么不呢？
Well, I am sympathetic to federalism.
嗯，我同情联邦制。
Part of the reason it may be perceived that I don’t go in that direction is because, historically, federalism has been used in large part to defend white supremacy.
人们可能认为我不朝这个方向前进的部分原因是，从历史上看，联邦制在很大程度上被用来捍卫白人至上。
It doesn’t need to be used in that way, and if we’re not identifying, not recognizing that kind of pathology, I think federalism is entirely compatible with and makes sense in the context of rights.
它不需要以这种方式使用，如果我们不识别、不认识这种病态，我认为联邦制与权利完全兼容并且在权利背景下有意义。
In fact, we sometimes say that rights have to be universal in some sense.
事实上，我们有时会说权利在某种意义上必须具有普遍性。
I’m not sure why that’s true.
我不知道为什么这是真的。
I think rights are constantly a subject of contestation, just as governance is constantly a subject of contestation.
我认为权利始终是争论的主题，就像治理始终是争论的主题一样。
There might be lessons to be learned from having some flexibility in how we think about those in different institutional contexts and across geographic space.
我们可以通过灵活地思考不同制度环境和跨地理空间的问题来吸取教训。
What do you think of the critique made by many supply-side progressives, such as Ezra Klein, that there’s an accretion of too many veto points in our legal system?
您如何看待埃兹拉·克莱因（Ezra Klein）等许多供给方进步人士对我们的法律体系中增加了太多否决权的批评？
No one would say that snail darters have absolute rights, but they have some claim to a level of review before you can build something that pushes them out.
没有人会说蜗牛镖手拥有绝对的权利，但在你可以建造出将他们赶走的东西之前，他们有权要求一定程度的审查。
If you have a lot more — let’s call it non-racist federalism — a lot more intermediate layers of rights, you just accrete more and more reviews, more delays.
如果你有更多的——“让我们称之为非种族主义联邦制”————更多的中间层权利，你只会积累越来越多的审查，更多的延误。
Things don’t get built.
事情没有建成。
Things don’t happen.
事情不会发生。
We can’t fix global warming as a problem because it takes seven years to get your wind farm approved.
我们无法解决全球变暖这个问题，因为您的风电场需要七年时间才能获得批准。
Isn’t having a proliferation of the number of rights in the middle actually the problem we face?
中间权利数量的激增实际上不是我们面临的问题吗？
Well, no, I don’t think so.
嗯，不，我不这么认为。
When I talk about rights federalism, I don’t mean creating more rights in the sense in which we associate rights with a certain kind of absolutism, and that’s not what I mean.
当我谈论权利联邦制时，我的意思并不是要创造更多的权利，即我们将权利与某种专制主义联系起来，而这不是我的意思。
What I mean is, rights are not just about things that courts say.
我的意思是，权利不仅仅是法院所说的事情。
Rights are grounded in political negotiation, and the number of sites where that political negotiation is possible should be greater.
权利的基础是政治谈判，而可以进行政治谈判的场所应该更多。
I think that that gives people leverage in political negotiation in ways that they don’t have when you say, okay, you’ve got a kind of absolute free speech right that applies the same way everywhere, and anyone who wants to stop something speech-grounded, let’s say, can invoke this absolute, universal speech right.
我认为这给了人们在政治谈判中所没有的影响力，当你说，好吧，你有一种绝对的言论自由权，在任何地方都以同样的方式适用，任何想要阻止基于言论的事情的人，比方说，都可以援引这种绝对的、普遍的言论权。
I think that’s as destructive, more destructive of government effectiveness.
我认为这对政府效率的破坏性更大。
Government effectiveness is itself something that can and should be understood in rights terms, but we have a right to democratic participation and to the fruits of that participation to bear fruit.
政府效能本身可以而且应该从权利的角度来理解，但我们有权民主参与，并有权让参与的成果结出硕果。
How long does the median political negotiation take in terms of months or years?
政治谈判的中位数需要多长时间（以月或年计算）？
Well, I don’t mean political negotiation at a congressional level.
嗯，我指的不是国会层面的政治谈判。
I mean in our day-to-day interactions with each other.
我的意思是在我们彼此的日常互动中。
There are a lot of different sites for politics, not just in some legislature or some such.
有很多不同的政治场所，不仅仅是在某些立法机构或类似机构。
What the call is, is a call for there to be less trumps, in that sense, less veto points because nothing’s ever quite a trump.
我们的呼吁是呼吁减少王牌，从这个意义上说，减少否决权，因为没有什么是真正的王牌。
And people knowing that they’re not going to win in court are less likely to go to court — or not be sure they’re going to win.
人们知道自己不会在法庭上获胜，就不太可能去法庭 ——或者不确定自己会赢。
As someone who lives in New York, surely you’re familiar with how hard it is to get new subway lines built, right?
作为居住在纽约的人，您肯定知道修建新地铁线路有多么困难，对吧？
Yes.
是的。
It can take many decades.
这可能需要几十年的时间。
It costs far too much.
成本太高了。
Maybe it doesn’t ultimately get stopped, like the Second Avenue line has opened, even though it was first planned in the 1970s.
也许它最终不会像第二大道线开通那样被停止，尽管它最初是在 20 世纪 70 年代规划的。
It’s not Congress at fault.
这不是国会的错。
It does seem there are just too many interaction points, too many rights-relevant claims that can be made to slow things down.
似乎确实有太多的互动点、太多与权利相关的主张，可以减缓事情的进展。
Isn’t that the problem we need to solve if we want actual democratic accountability, that the things you choose from your democracy can then actually happen?
如果我们想要真正的民主问责制，那么你从民主中选择的事情才能真正发生，这不是我们需要解决的问题吗？
Well, if we’re talking subway infrastructure .
好吧，如果我们谈论的是地铁基础设施。
.
。
.
。
It depends on what you’re talking about.
这取决于你在说什么。
Different cities are good at different things.
不同的城市擅长做不同的事情。
New York is very bad at subway infrastructure, for sure.
当然，纽约的地铁基础设施非常糟糕。
I don’t have a story to tell that connects that to veto points.
我没有一个故事可以讲述将其与否决点联系起来。
The costs of construction are much higher in New York than other places.
纽约的建筑成本比其他地方高得多。
I don’t have a good story for exactly why that’s the case, but other places that think about rights in much more flexible ways have perfectly good public infrastructure — Canada, much of Western Europe, for example.
我没有一个好的故事来解释为什么会出现这种情况，但其他以更灵活的方式考虑权利的地方拥有非常好的公共基础设施 ——例如加拿大、西欧大部分地区。
I’m not sure how much of the story one can tell in that sense.
我不确定从这个意义上讲这个故事有多少。
I think generally, again, we should constantly be concerned about the ability of government to be effective.
我认为，总的来说，我们应该不断关注政府有效的能力。
And if some particular rights regime, whether the one I’m describing or the one I’m criticizing, is standing in the way, that’s a problem.
如果某种特定的权利制度——无论是我所描述的还是我所批评的——阻碍了，那就是一个问题。
I’m not suggesting any kind of essentialism about this, but what I observe is that people use the putative absolutism of rights to prevent government from being effective on quite a regular basis.
我并不是建议对此有任何本质主义，但我观察到，人们利用假定的权利绝对主义来阻止政府经常发挥作用。
What do you think is the most worrisome unintended consequence of implementing your vision of rights for America?
您认为实现您的美国权利愿景最令人担忧的意外后果是什么？
Well, I think the biggest potential problem is an inability of courts and political actors further down in the system to know what their rights and obligations are.
嗯，我认为最大的潜在问题是法院和系统中更底层的政治参与者无法知道他们的权利和义务是什么。
The US Supreme Court is an apex court.
美国最高法院是最高法院。
It sits on the top of a pyramid, a hierarchy of other courts.
它位于金字塔的顶部，是其他法院的等级制度。
All of those courts have constitutional jurisdiction, so you have a potential for chaos that is not present in many other jurisdictions, although some — Canada, for example — have the same basic structure.
所有这些法院都拥有宪法管辖权，因此可能会出现许多其他司法管辖区所不存在的混乱，尽管有些法院（例如加拿大）具有相同的基本结构。
A kind of deep legal uncertainty is something that one should be concerned about and should watch out for.
一种深刻的法律不确定性是值得人们关注和警惕的。
I think it’s overstated.
我认为这有些言过其实了。
As I’ve said, some flexibility and some inconsistency in the law is not as bad as sometimes we say it is, but I do think that that can upset expectations.
正如我所说，法律中的一些灵活性和一些不一致并不像有时我们所说的那么糟糕，但我确实认为这可能会扰乱期望。
It can make it hard to plan, so I think that’s the thing to watch out for.
它会使计划变得困难，所以我认为这是需要注意的事情。
There is a crude view in popular American society — even possibly correct — that, simply, American society is too legalistic.
美国流行社会有一种粗俗的观点——“甚至可能是正确的”——简单地说，美国社会过于墨守成规。
There’s that book, Three Felonies a Day.
有一本书，《一日三重罪》。
If you have expired prescription medicine in your cabinet, you’re committing a felony.
如果你的柜子里有过期的处方药，你就犯了重罪。
People who are very smart will just tell me, “Never talk to a cop.
非常聪明的人只会告诉我：“永远不要和警察说话。
Never talk to an FBI agent.” I’m an upper-class White guy who’s literally never smoked marijuana once, and they’re telling me, “Don’t ever speak with the law.”
永远不要与联邦调查局特工交谈。”我是一个上流社会的白人，实际上从来没有吸过大麻，他们告诉我，“永远不要触犯法律。”
Isn’t something wrong there?
是不是有什么问题啊？
Is the common intuition that we’re too legalistic correct?
我们过于墨守成规的普遍直觉是正确的吗？
I think that we are too apt to submit political disputes to legal resolution.
我认为我们太容易将政治争端提交法律解决。
I think that for sure.
我认为这是肯定的。
What your friends are telling you about police officers is slightly different, insofar as one can have a deeply non-legalistic culture in which the correct advice is to not talk to police officers if those people are corrupt, if those people are abusive.
你的朋友告诉你的关于警察的事情略有不同，因为人们可能有一种非常非法律主义的文化，在这种文化中，正确的建议是，如果那些人腐败，如果那些人滥用职权，就不要与警察交谈。
When I hear that advice — and I might be differently situated than you — that’s what people are saying is, someone might be out to trick you.
当我听到这个建议时————而且我的处境可能与你不同————人们就是这么说的，有人可能会来欺骗你。
And that might be a mistrust of state power, as you mentioned before.
正如您之前提到的，这可能是对国家权力的不信任。
Maybe it’s a rational mistrust of state power, but I don’t know that that’s about legalism, which again, is a separate potential problem.
也许这是对国家权力的理性不信任，但我不知道这与法制主义有关，这又是一个单独的潜在问题。
We tend to formulate our problems in legal terms, as if the right way to solve them is to decide how they are to be resolved by a court, or how they are to be resolved by some adjudicative official, as opposed to thinking about our problems in terms of just inherent in, again, pluralism, which has to be solved through politics, has to be solved through conversation.
我们倾向于用法律术语来阐述我们的问题，就好像解决问题的正确方法是决定法院如何解决这些问题，或者某个裁决官员如何解决这些问题，而不是从多元化固有的角度来思考我们的问题，多元化必须通过政治来解决，必须通过对话来解决。
But we still have whatever is upstream of the American law, the steep historical and cultural background, so anything we do is going to be flavored by that.
但我们仍然拥有美国法律的上游，深厚的历史和文化背景，所以我们所做的任何事情都会受到它的影响。
We’re not ever going to get to a system where the policemen are like the policemen in Germany, for instance, or that the courts are like the courts in Germany.
例如，我们永远不会建立一个警察像德国警察的系统，或者法院像德国法院的系统。
Given that cultural upstream, again, isn’t the intuition basically correct?
考虑到文化的上游，直觉不是基本上是正确的吗？
Just be suspicious of the law.
只是对法律持怀疑态度。
We should have fewer laws, rely less on the legal process, in essence, deregulate as many different things as we can.
我们应该减少法律的数量，减少对法律程序的依赖，从本质上讲，我们应该尽可能放松对不同事物的管制。
Why isn’t that the correct conclusion, rather than building in more rights?
为什么这不是正确的结论，而不是建立更多的权利？
Well, I’m skeptical of the cultural premise, or at least I think it requires more specification.
好吧，我对文化前提持怀疑态度，或者至少我认为它需要更多的规范。
I do think that Americans have a history of being paranoid about various things, but this idea that state-building is somehow un-American or something — I just don’t buy it.
我确实认为美国人有对各种事情偏执的历史，但这种认为国家建设在某种程度上不符合美国风格的想法 —— 我就是不相信。
There was an inflection point — I think an important inflection point — in the 1960s and around the response to the Great Society that one can’t separate from race quite as cleanly as one might wish to, that associates big government with helping out racial minorities in particular, and there was a reaction to that.
在 20 世纪 60 年代，出现了一个拐点——“我认为是一个重要的拐点”——人们对“伟大社会”的反应，即人们无法像人们希望的那样干净地与种族分开，将大政府与特别是帮助少数族裔联系在一起，并且对此做出了反应。
I am not conceding — I won’t concede at this moment, at least, that we just have to accept that that’s an inevitable feature of the American people, the solution to which is some kind of deregulation.
我不会承认——至少现在我不会承认，我们必须接受这是美国人民不可避免的特征，解决办法就是某种形式的放松管制。
It’s hard for me to draw a line from what I see as the problem to that solution.
对我来说，很难将我所看到的问题与解决方案划清界限。
Say we consider the notion of making disabled people either a protected class or a partially protected class, and you’ve written about this.
假设我们考虑让残疾人成为受保护阶层或部分受保护阶层的概念，而您已经写过相关文章。
Aren’t we, in that sense, forcing them much more into the legal system?
从这个意义上说，我们不是在迫使他们更多地进入法律体系吗？
You have to get a legally valid diagnosis to count as some particular kind of disabled — autistic, ADHD, whatever it may be.
你必须获得合法有效的诊断才能算作某种特定类型的残疾人——自闭症、多动症，无论是什么。
Doesn’t that legalistic requirement itself infringe on the rights of many disabled people who may not even think of themselves as disabled or may not wish to be labeled, or they don’t want to get a diagnosis because it will work against them when their divorce case comes up, or for some other reason in the workplace?
这种法律要求本身是否侵犯了许多残疾人的权利，他们可能甚至不认为自己是残疾人，或者可能不希望被贴上标签，或者他们不想得到诊断，因为当离婚案件出现时，这会对他们不利，或者由于工作场所的其他原因？
Isn’t it the case that making it more legalistic is going to infringe on a lot of people’s rights and lead to great harm?
如果把它变得更加法治化，岂不是会侵犯很多人的权利，造成很大的危害吗？
No, I don’t think so.
不，我不这么认为。
I don’t think that providing more openness in the law to disability claims requires people to be in some kind of registry of disabilities that’s stigmatizing or something.
我不认为法律对残疾索赔提供更多的开放性要求人们进行某种带有侮辱性或其他什么的残疾登记。
Rights are for those who wish to exercise them, not for those who don’t.
权利属于那些愿意行使权利的人，而不是属于那些不想行使权利的人。
As a matter of actual evidence, you have to show you have the disability, right?
作为实际证据，你必须证明你有残疾，对吧？
Well, it depends on what we’re talking about.
嗯，这取决于我们在谈论什么。
I’m not someone who believes that one’s rights should necessarily turn on one’s individual claim to an exemption from some scheme.
我不认为一个人的权利必然取决于一个人对某些计划的豁免的个人主张。
When I talk about disability rights, a couple of things to say.
当我谈论残疾人权利时，有几件事要说。
One is that we should respect political processes that protect disability rights, and right now, we don’t fully.
一是我们应该尊重保护残疾人权利的政治进程，但目前我们还没有完全尊重。
That’s not necessarily a matter of presenting oneself as disabled.
这并不一定是把自己表现为残疾人的问题。
A business having to make a reasonable accommodation helps anyone, regardless of who needs the accommodation, regardless of what their particular legal designation might be.
企业必须提供合理的便利，以帮助任何人，无论谁需要便利，无论他们的特定法律名称是什么。
There’s also another point, which is that when we’re talking about disability rights, there’s genuine injustice that I think many of us recognize as injustice, that people who are less able are less able to thrive.
还有一点，那就是，当我们谈论残疾人权利时，存在真正的不公正，我认为我们很多人都认为这是不公正，即能力较差的人成长能力较差。
It’s not just a matter of a legal technicality that we think that these people should have rights.
我们认为这些人应该拥有权利，这不仅仅是法律技术问题。
It’s that we think they should have rights, so there shouldn’t be legal formalisms that get in the way of that.
我们认为他们应该拥有权利，所以不应该有法律形式主义来妨碍这一点。
And that’s my objection.
这就是我的反对意见。
Say an autistic person says, “Well, I hate fluorescent lighting.
假设一个自闭症患者说：“嗯，我讨厌荧光灯。
You need to change the lighting in the workplace.” The employer comes back and says, “Well, at least I need to know you’re autistic.
你需要改变工作场所的照明。”雇主回来说：“好吧，至少我需要知道你患有自闭症。
Where is your diagnosis?” That seems like a pattern we might expect, whether we like it or not.
你的诊断结果在哪里？”无论我们喜欢与否，这似乎都是我们所期望的模式。
It’s not some accommodation that simply helps everyone.
这并不是某种简单的住宿就能帮助所有人。
The lighting is one way or another.
照明是一种或另一种方式。
Could that be a right that has partial recognition?
这是否是一项得到部分承认的权利？
It is the case that if you make more claims legally available, people may argue about whether those claims should be recognized.
情况是，如果你提出更多合法的主张，人们可能会争论这些主张是否应该得到承认。
In the particular context of disability, the problem that I see is that there are genuine claims of right, genuine claims of justice that are unrecognized.
在残疾的特定背景下，我看到的问题是，真正的权利主张、真正的正义主张没有得到承认。
The fact that someone who has a disability is not being accommodated is something that counts as a cost for me.
没有为残疾人提供住宿这一事实对我来说是一种成本。
The fact that it also means that legal claims will be involved is something that I think is overcome by the connection between the actual accommodation and what we think justice requires.
事实上，这也意味着将涉及法律索赔，我认为这一点可以通过实际的便利和我们认为正义要求之间的联系来克服。
The flip side of that is, there are lots of rights that we have in our culture that are not actually connected to any deep conception of justice.
另一方面是，我们文化中拥有的许多权利实际上与任何深刻的正义概念无关。
I have a right to watch pornography in my home.
我有权在家里观看色情内容。
If the state said that I don’t have that right, that’s costly to me, but the connection between that and, I think, many of our conceptions of justice is much weaker than the connection when it comes to disability rights.
如果国家说我没有这项权利，这对我来说代价高昂，但我认为，这与我们许多正义观念之间的联系比涉及残疾人权利时的联系要弱得多。
It’s not that I’m saying we don’t have many rights now and we should have many more.
我并不是说我们现在没有很多权利，我们应该拥有更多。
It’s that there’s a misalignment between the rights that we think are worth it and the rights that we don’t think are worth it.
而是我们认为值得的权利和我们认为不值得的权利之间存在着不一致。
I’m a fan of Robert Nozick, though not in the absolutist sense.
我是罗伯特·诺齐克的粉丝，尽管不是绝对意义上的粉丝。
Nonetheless, I believe there’s some right to economic liberty.
尽管如此，我相信经济自由是有一定权利的。
So if a state set up, say, occupational licensing for interior designers, I would want at least a state court to strike that down and say that’s a violation of the right of economic liberty, and that there’s no other overriding concern.
因此，如果一个州为室内设计师设立职业许可，我希望至少有一个州法院驳回这一规定，并说这是对经济自由权的侵犯，并且没有其他压倒一切的担忧。
What would be an example where you would want a policy struck down for violating economic liberty?
您希望因侵犯经济自由而废除一项政策的例子是什么？
I also would say, as a tentative matter, that occupational licensing for interior designers would be a policy that I would think should be struck down, as you do.
我还想说，作为一个暂定事项，室内设计师的职业许可将是一项我认为应该被废除的政策，就像你所做的那样。
Our current system doesn’t allow that claim to be struck down.
我们当前的系统不允许这种说法被推翻。
In some ways, this is analogous to the disability situation, where if you’ve got no good reason for a particular law — although it’s not fully analogous — if you have no good reason for a particular law, that law shouldn’t be in place.
在某些方面，这类似于残疾情况，如果你没有充分的理由支持某项特定法律——尽管它并不完全相似——如果你没有充分的理由支持某项特定法律，那么该法律就不应该存在。
I say “tentatively” because I think that all of these kinds of cases shouldn’t turn on some major premise about economic regulation, or some such.
我说“暂时”是因为我认为所有这些案例都不应该以经济监管之类的大前提为前提。
It should depend on the facts.
这应该取决于事实。
I don’t know enough about interior design to know whether there’s some good reason to have occupational licensing.
我对室内设计了解不够，不知道是否有充分的理由获得职业许可。
It doesn’t seem like there’s a good reason, but I’d want to know factually.
似乎没有什么充分的理由，但我想知道事实。
The empirical record matters.
经验记录很重要。
Sure.
当然。
You might think there could be some particular kinds of frauds that would proliferate in the less regulated regime.
您可能认为某些特定类型的欺诈行为可能会在监管较少的制度中激增。
But you still, at the same time, might hold the opinion there’s a right to economic liberty, and you can contract for your interior design with the persons you want.
但与此同时，您仍然可能认为存在经济自由权，并且您可以与您想要的人签订室内设计合同。
It’s not creating any overriding danger to the polity, or it’s not eliminating all licensing for all doctors.
它不会对政府造成任何压倒性的危险，也不会取消所有医生的所有执照。
It’s just something one can live with.
这只是人们可以忍受的事情。
If you want to make your living that way, that’s your right to do so.
如果你想以这种方式谋生，那是你这样做的权利。
Why isn’t that just prima facie correct?
为什么表面上看这不是正确的呢？
I wouldn’t deny that that’s prima facie correct.
我不会否认这表面上是正确的。
I would phrase it slightly differently, or frame it slightly differently, which is to say that people do have a basic right to the government justifying when it regulates them.
我的措辞略有不同，或者框架也略有不同，也就是说，人们确实拥有政府在监管他们时为其辩护的基本权利。
I don’t feel a need to label that as a right.
我觉得没有必要将其标记为权利。
Labeling it as a right carries some baggage, and maybe makes people have greater expectations of how far they can go than I think is healthy.
将其标记为权利带有一些包袱，也许会让人们对自己能走多远抱有比我认为健康的更大的期望。
But yes, absolutely, if there’s no good reason to regulate, then the government shouldn’t regulate.
但是，是的，绝对的，如果没有充分的理由进行监管，那么政府就不应该进行监管。
There are some issues with a regime of that sort.
此类政权存在一些问题。
As a US lawyer, people will throw Lochner v.
作为一名美国律师，人们会抛出洛克纳诉。
New York at that kind of system.
纽约有那种系统。
But to my mind, the problem in the Lochner case — which is this famous legal case from 1905 about maximum hours law which the court struck down — is not that the court should never strike down maximum hours laws.
但在我看来，洛克纳案（这是 1905 年有关最长工作时间法的著名法律案件，但被法院推翻）的问题并不是法院永远不应该废除最长工作时间法。
It’s that that particular law was well justified.
那条特定的法律是有充分理由的。
The battle over these things should be a battle over justification, not a battle over whether people have rights.
这些事情的争论应该是正义的争论，而不是人们是否有权利的争论。
I think people do have rights to contract and economic rights and so forth.
我认为人们确实拥有合同权和经济权等等。
As you probably know, for minor league baseball, a lot of labor law just doesn’t apply.
您可能知道，对于小联盟棒球来说，许多劳动法并不适用。
People can work — if work’s even the right word — all crazy hours at very low pay, and nothing from the state intervenes.
人们可以工作——“如果工作这个词更准确的话——”工资很低，疯狂地工作，而且国家不会干预。
It’s considered partly an apprenticeship for many people.
对于许多人来说，这在一定程度上被视为学徒期。
Yes, there may well be context in which we are willing to tolerate that as a society, but I think it has to be contextual.
是的，作为一个社会，我们很可能愿意容忍这种情况，但我认为这必须是有具体情况的。
This is partly a political conversation.
这在一定程度上是一场政治对话。
I might have my own views about this, and others have their views.
对此我可能有自己的看法，其他人也有他们的看法。
It’s okay for those views to be worked out through politics, through forms of dialogue.
这些观点可以通过政治、通过对话形式来解决。
Maybe you strike down something at the margins, and you see how the state responds.
也许你在边缘取消了一些东西，然后你就会看到国家如何反应。
You see how people respond.
你看看人们如何反应。
I think courts should be part of a broader political conversation about these balances of values that we all disagree about.
我认为法院应该参与更广泛的政治对话，讨论我们都不同意的价值观平衡。
Now, you yourself emphasize that these partial rights — they often conflict with each other, sometimes by their very nature.
现在，您自己强调这些部分权利 ——它们经常相互冲突，有时甚至是由于其本质而相互冲突。
If I put on my Henry Sidgwick philosopher hat, and I ask, “What’s the ultimate moral standard you use as a moralist when rights conflict, to arrive at a decision?” How do we solve the problem of pluralism is another way to put it, morally.
如果我戴上亨利·西奇威克哲学家的帽子，然后问：“当权利冲突时，作为道德家，你用来做出决定的最终道德标准是什么？”我们如何解决多元化问题是另一种说法，从道德上讲。
What would your answer be?
你的答案是什么？
Well, I think the most important value for an adjudicator of a case involving competing rights is humility and the recognition that the adjudicator doesn’t have superior knowledge, superior moral knowledge, about the way of resolving these conflicts.
嗯，我认为对于涉及权利竞争案件的审判者来说，最重要的价值是谦逊，并认识到审判者在解决这些冲突的方式方面没有高超的知识、高超的道德知识。
These conflicts are political conflicts.
这些冲突都是政治冲突。
Now, at some level, if we think the politics are acting in a perfectly sensible way, then maybe there’s not much of a role for the adjudicator.
现在，在某种程度上，如果我们认为政治正在以完全明智的方式行事，那么裁决者的作用可能就不大了。
Maybe you just let politics work itself out in the way it should if we think that there’s something that politics is missing.
如果我们认为政治缺少某些东西，也许你就让政治按照它应有的方式发展。
When I say “we,” again, I think people are going to have different views about this.
当我再次说“我们”时，我认为人们对此会有不同的看法。
If you think something’s missing, if you think that someone’s not fully taking account of the full dignity of someone, if you think the government is acting grossly disproportionately, then that’s when you step in.
如果你认为缺少了某些东西，如果你认为某人没有充分考虑到某人的全部尊严，如果你认为政府的行为严重不相称，那么那就是你介入的时候了。
Those words you’re using — “sensible” and “grossly” — they’re in a sense parasitic on some independent moral standard.
你使用的这些词 ——“明智的”和“严重的”——从某种意义上说，它们寄生于某种独立的道德标准。
I’m not suggesting you should be utilitarian, but if you said, “Well, I’m a utilitarian, as Bentham was,” that would answer the question of how you reconcile the claims.
我并不是建议你应该是功利主义者，但如果你说，“嗯，我是一个功利主义者，就像边沁一样，”那就会回答你如何调和这些主张的问题。
So, if it’s not utilitarianism, then what is it exactly?
那么，如果这不是功利主义，那它到底是什么？
I hesitate to label it.
我犹豫着要不要给它贴上标签。
It is, I would say proportionality, which means, in this sense, that one is constantly concerned with .
我想说的是比例性，从这个意义上说，这意味着人们不断关注。
.
。
.
。
and proportionality as to a set of values that are embedded within the existing legal tradition.
以及嵌入现有法律传统中的一套价值观的相称性。
Within our legal tradition, we value freedom of speech, we value racial equality, we value a certain degree of independence and autonomy, and those are differently affected by different kinds of laws.
在我们的法律传统中，我们重视言论自由，我们重视种族平等，我们重视一定程度的独立和自治，这些受到不同类型的法律的不同影响。
Laws also protect some of those values.
法律也保护其中一些价值观。
So, it’s a constant negotiation.
所以，这是一个持续的谈判。
Of course, democracy is also a value.
当然，民主也是一种价值观。
There are multiple competing values.
有多种相互竞争的价值观。
I don’t have a key, because the key presupposes some hierarchy between the values that I reject.
我没有密钥，因为密钥预设了我拒绝的值之间的某种层次结构。
I think that in each individual case, those values are going to be affected to different degrees, and that’s part of what the judge’s job is — to figure out whether there is some disproportionality in the way in which values that we all share are being respected.
我认为，在每个案件中，这些价值观都会受到不同程度的影响，这就是法官工作的一部分——弄清楚我们共同的价值观受到尊重的方式是否存在不成比例的情况。
But then, how do you ever know if you’re right?
但是，你怎么知道你是对的呢？
I’m not sure if, at the margins, there are values we all share.
我不确定在边缘是否存在我们共同的价值观。
There’s disagreement.
有分歧。
Proportionality is just saying there’s some weighting scheme behind this all, that we judge by some standard of whether we’re offended.
比例只是说这一切背后有一些权重方案，我们通过某种标准来判断我们是否被冒犯了。
But then, that’s getting back to what lies behind all that.
但是，这又回到了这一切背后的原因。
I don’t see what the answer is.
我不知道答案是什么。
Well, I don’t think there is an answer because I don’t think the question is whether we’re right.
好吧，我认为没有答案，因为我认为问题不在于我们是否正确。
I think the question is whether we’re managing disagreement in a way that leads to social harmony and social cohesion.
我认为问题在于我们是否以一种能够带来社会和谐和社会凝聚力的方式管理分歧。
The problem, again, is not a problem that some of us are getting rights wrong.
再说一次，问题并不是我们中的一些人搞错了权利。
You want abortion rights, I don’t, or vice versa.
你想要堕胎权，我不想要，反之亦然。
You want labor rights, I don’t, or vice versa.
你想要劳工权利，我不想要，反之亦然。
One of us is right, and one of us is wrong.
我们中有一个人是对的，也有一个人是错的。
The problem is that we disagree, and we don’t agree on the way of resolving our disagreement either.
问题是我们意见不一致，而且我们对于解决分歧的方式也没有达成一致。
The job of the judge, under those circumstances, is to manage disagreement, to manage pluralism.
在这种情况下，法官的工作就是管理分歧、管理多元化。
That’s not something that lends itself to being right or wrong.
这并不能说明是对还是错。
You’re one of the leaders on the Facebook Oversight Board.
您是 Facebook 监督委员会的领导者之一。
What is the optimal correlation between the content moderation policies of different social networks?
不同社交网络的内容审核政策之间的最佳相关性是什么？
Some people worry.
有些人担心。
It’s okay if Facebook takes someone off the platform — not the company Meta, but the Facebook page — but if Twitter and YouTube do the same thing at the same time, then people start getting worried.
如果 Facebook 将某人从该平台上删除，这没关系——不是 Meta 公司，而是 Facebook 页面——但如果 Twitter 和 YouTube 同时做同样的事情，那么人们就会开始担心。
So, should individual social media companies consider the interdependencies here, or just each act separately?
那么，各个社交媒体公司是否应该考虑这里的相互依赖性，或者只是各自采取行动？
Well, I think it depends on the content.
嗯，我认为这取决于内容。
Generally speaking, yes — I won’t speak for the oversight board; I’ll just speak for myself — generally speaking, yes.
一般来说，是的 —— 我不会代表监督委员会发言；我只代表我自己 —— 一般来说，是的。
I do think that one should generally be concerned with whether the market for users is a competitive market or not.
我确实认为，人们应该普遍关心用户市场是否是竞争市场。
If Facebook is the only game in town, as it is in many countries, I think one is right to be more concerned about its content moderation practices under those circumstances than under circumstances of genuine competition.
如果 Facebook 是唯一的游戏，就像在许多国家一样，我认为人们在这种情况下比在真正竞争的情况下更关心其内容审核实践是正确的。
It would then follow that if all the companies are doing the same thing, whether or not they’re coordinating their behavior, one should be more worried about that.
由此可见，如果所有公司都在做同样的事情，无论它们是否协调行为，人们都应该更加担心这一点。
It’s hard to be abstract about that because some content comes down because there’s good reason to take it down.
对此很难抽象，因为有些内容被删除是因为有充分的理由将其删除。
Facebook is a big player in the market.
Facebook 是该市场的重要参与者。
You don’t have to think it’s either collusion or that Facebook is a monopoly, but it’s just like, if one employer fires you, a lot of others will be reluctant to hire you.
你不必认为这是共谋，也不必认为 Facebook 是垄断者，但这就像，如果一个雇主解雇了你，很多其他人就会不愿意雇用你。
They’ll think, “Oh, something went wrong.” If Facebook takes down a content poster, then Twitter and YouTube must think, “Well, Facebook looked into this.
他们会想：“哦，出了什么问题。”如果 Facebook 撤下一张内容海报，那么 Twitter 和 YouTube 一定会想：“好吧，Facebook 对此进行了调查。
Facebook even has this oversight board, a lot of smart people on it, a lot of diverse points of view.” Shouldn’t that make you much more reluctant to argue for something not being on Facebook?
Facebook 甚至有一个监督委员会，里面有很多聪明的人，有很多不同的观点。”这难道不会让你更不愿意为 Facebook 上没有的东西争论吗？
Well, I’m skeptical that that’s, in fact, how YouTube and Twitter behave, that they take things down because Facebook takes something down.
嗯，我怀疑 YouTube 和 Twitter 的行为实际上就是这样，他们删除某些内容是因为 Facebook 删除了某些内容。
I’d also say, look, it’s complicated.
我还想说，你看，这很复杂。
There are things that come down because there are good reasons to take them down.
有些东西之所以被拆除，是因为有充分的理由拆除它们。
Yes, as I said, I think one should be concerned with market concentration and market power.
是的，正如我所说，我认为应该关注市场集中度和市场力量。
One should be concerned if there is speech that should be proliferating but isn’t.
如果有言论应该激增，但实际上却没有，人们应该担心。
One should be concerned that the decision-makers are private actors.
人们应该担心决策者是私人行为者。
One should also be concerned with the harms of certain kinds of speech and the ways in which those harms can be amplified in the social media context.
人们还应该关注某些言论的危害以及这些危害在社交媒体环境中放大的方式。
One should be concerned about the particular rights of the platform.
人们应该关注平台的特殊权利。
These are private companies, but also have their own views about what their speech environment should be.
这些都是私营公司，但对于自己的演讲环境应该是什么样也有自己的看法。
There are a number of other factors that count in addition to whether some particular piece of content should get spread.
除了某些特定内容是否应该传播之外，还有许多其他因素也很重要。
Now, you’ve argued in the past that there’s no constitutional right to privacy, and I think I agree with everything you have written on the topic.
现在，您过去曾辩称宪法中不存在隐私权，我想我同意您就该主题所写的所有内容。
But if I introduce a new angle, I’m wondering if I agree with you.
但如果我引入一个新的角度，我想知道我是否同意你的观点。
Right now, facial and gait surveillance are much more prominent than when you wrote your original articles.
现在，面部和步态监控比您撰写原始文章时更加突出。
If someone said, “Well, I’m worried about facial and gait surveillance.” These are genuinely infringing upon a right to privacy, in the literal sense of that term, that’s much more literal than the other context where the right to privacy has been invoked.
如果有人说：“好吧，我担心面部和步态监控。”这些确实侵犯了隐私权，从该术语的字面意义上讲，这比援引隐私权的其他情况更加字面意义。
Would you still say there’s no right to privacy?
你还会说没有隐私权吗？
Well, I don’t think there’s no right to privacy.
嗯，我不认为没有隐私权。
I think that the Supreme Court no longer grounds the sorts of things that we associate with the constitutional right to privacy in a right to privacy.
我认为最高法院不再将我们与宪法隐私权联系在一起的那些事情作为隐私权的依据。
We think of that in terms of birth control and abortion rights, and that is no longer the language and hasn’t been for many, many decades — hasn’t been the language that the court uses.
我们从节育和堕胎权的角度来考虑这一点，这不再是这种语言，而且已经有几十年了——也不是法院使用的语言。
There’s no right to privacy in a descriptive sense.
不存在描述性意义上的隐私权。
I do think privacy is an important value to people.
我确实认为隐私对人们来说是一个重要的价值。
When it’s being infringed by private actors, there are other important values that are also relevant, namely, the economic rights of the private actors.
当它受到私人行为者侵犯时，还有其他重要的价值也相关，即私人行为者的经济权利。
If we’re talking about government surveillance, I’d want to know, why is the government surveilling?
如果我们谈论政府监视，我想知道政府为什么要监视？
What is the value that it’s serving?
它所服务的价值是什么？
Is it ham-handed?
是手残吗？
What are the possibilities of abuse?
滥用的可能性有哪些？
Could it achieve these objectives in some way that doesn’t involve the privacy infringement?
它能否以某种不涉及隐私侵犯的方式实现这些目标？
I think privacy is a right and should be treated in the same way as other rights.
我认为隐私是一项权利，应该像其他权利一样对待。
Our final segment: the Jamal Greene production function.
我们的最后一部分：Jamal Greene 生产函数。
What did you learn collecting insects with your dad in the backyard?
你和你爸爸在后院收集昆虫学到了什么？
Gosh, I don’t know where that came from.
天哪，我不知道那是从哪里来的。
It’s true.
这是真的。
Maybe nothing, other than that I like my dad.
也许没什么，除了我喜欢我的爸爸。
He’s a good guy.
他是个好人。
I think it showed something about my interest in taxonomy, which is probably not unconnected to later becoming a baseball reporter, as I became a stathead in high school and in college.
我认为这表明了我对分类学的兴趣，这可能与后来成为一名棒球记者不无关系，因为我在高中和大学成为了一名统计负责人。
So there is probably a story to tell there.
所以那里可能有一个故事要讲。
Intellectually, the different parts of New York you lived in growing up — how did that shape your views intellectually?
从智力上来说，你成长过程中所居住的纽约的不同地区——这如何在智力上塑造了你的观点？
You moved from Queens to Park Slope, right?
你从皇后区搬到了公园坡，对吗？
I was in Brooklyn for all my childhood, in Park Slope for part of it and a place called Flatlands for the rest of it.
我的整个童年都在布鲁克林度过，一部分时间在公园坡度过，其余时间则在一个叫弗拉特兰的地方度过。
Since adulthood, I’ve basically lived in Manhattan.
从成年起，我基本上就住在曼哈顿。
One thing I’d say is just an appreciation for pluralism that is still a part of my work, I think comes from going to school on the Upper East Side and laying my head an hour and a half away from that, across lots of different communities, lots of different neighborhoods, and learning to appreciate human diversity, learning to get used to it.
我想说的一件事是对多元化的欣赏，这仍然是我工作的一部分，我认为这来自于在上东区上学，在距离那里一个半小时的路程之外，跨越许多不同的社区，许多不同的社区，学习欣赏人类的多样性，学习习惯它。
The ways in which my high school community was very different from my family and seeing the value in each of those communities, I think was a very important part of formulating my values, so that I could never labor under the fiction that there is any one value that we all pursue.
我认为我的高中社区与我的家庭有很大不同，并且看到每个社区的价值是制定我的价值观的一个非常重要的部分，因此我永远不会在我们都追求的任何一种价值观的幻想下工作。
Your brother aside, who is the best rapper of all time?
除了你的兄弟之外，谁是有史以来最好的说唱歌手？
The best rapper of all time.
有史以来最好的说唱歌手。
Well, it depends on if we’re talking about lyrics or something else.
嗯，这取决于我们是在谈论歌词还是其他东西。
But I’ll go with Black Thought, who my brother would say as well, who’s the lead rapper for the Roots.
但我会选择 Black Thought，我哥哥也会说他，他是 The Roots 的首席说唱歌手。
What makes him especially interesting?
是什么让他特别有趣？
He’s prolific.
他多产。
He’s extremely productive.
他非常高效。
He’s very smart.
他很聪明。
He’s not lazy in the way in which he constructs his lyrics, and he manages to be both musical and a poet.
他在创作歌词的方式上并不懒惰，他成功地既是音乐人又是诗人。
This is something that my brother has struggled with early in his career.
这是我哥哥在职业生涯早期一直在努力解决的问题。
He’s a poet.
他是一位诗人。
He’s not a musician, and he had to learn to be a musician.
他不是音乐家，但他必须学习成为一名音乐家。
Trying to combine those things is a rare gift.
尝试将这些东西结合起来是一种罕见的天赋。
What was your favorite music from your father’s extensive music collection growing up?
在你父亲丰富的音乐收藏中，你成长过程中最喜欢的音乐是什么？
It was a bit earlier, so there’s less rap in it, proportionally.
时间有点早，所以里面的说唱相对较少。
My father’s not a rap fan, but he was a big jazz fan.
我父亲不是说唱迷，但他是爵士乐迷。
Coltrane, Miles Davis were people he grew up loving.
科尔特兰、迈尔斯·戴维斯是他从小就喜爱的人。
He also was into classic rock of his generation: your Bob Dylan, your Jimi Hendrix, the Beatles.
他还热衷于他这一代人的经典摇滚：鲍勃·迪伦、吉米·亨德里克斯、披头士乐队。
Nothing exotic, but good music.
没什么异国情调，但音乐很好听。
What is your oddest or most unusual effective work habit?
你最奇怪或最不寻常的有效工作习惯是什么？
Well, I don’t know that it’s so unusual, but certainly my most effective work habit is to use the entire day to work.
嗯，我不知道这有多不寻常，但我最有效的工作习惯肯定是用一整天的时间来工作。
I get a lot of work done late at night.
我在深夜完成很多工作。
Most of my time during the day is spent teaching classes or meeting with students, and all writing and reading and preparation and everything is much later.
我白天的大部分时间都花在教课或与学生会面上，所有的写作、阅读和准备等等一切都晚了很多。
That means I don’t watch television shows.
这意味着我不看电视节目。
It’s a really extended workday.
这真是一个延长的工作日。
I work during soccer practices.
我在足球训练期间工作。
I work sitting in the car while my kids are doing something or other.
我坐在车里工作，而我的孩子们正在做某事或其他事情。
I don’t segregate times of the day where I can’t work.
我不会隔离一天中不能工作的时间。
When you teach a law class, what is it you feel that you do differently from most of your colleagues?
当您教授法律课时，您觉得您与大多数同事的做法有何不同？
What is special about taking a class with you?
和你一起上课有什么特别的吗？
Well, I teach constitutional law.
嗯，我教宪法。
That’s not the only thing I teach, but it’s one of the main things I teach.
这不是我教的唯一内容，但却是我教的主要内容之一。
One thing that I try to communicate to students is that it’s okay if they go into the class and then come out of it really jaded about constitutional law and its relationship to politics.
我试图向学生传达的一件事是，如果他们进入课堂后对宪法及其与政治的关系感到厌倦，那也没关系。
We’re very open about the challenge of trying to understand law as an autonomous discipline.
我们对尝试将法律理解为一门独立学科的挑战持非常开放的态度。
Sort of, what are we doing here if we all know that there’s a realist core to what courts are doing?
某种程度上，如果我们都知道法院所做的事情有一个现实主义的核心，那么我们在这里做什么呢？
I don’t know that that’s so unique to me, but it is a very self-conscious journey that we all take together, to say, is there a place you can arrive at where you’re comfortable with what your role as a lawyer is, and what your role as a constitutional lawyer is?
我不知道这对我来说有多独特，但这是一个我们大家共同经历的非常自觉的旅程，也就是说，是否有一个地方可以让你对自己作为一名律师的角色感到满意，以及你作为一名宪法律师的角色是什么？
What you have to do is to learn a certain language that, self-consciously, you know is not just shallow fiction but a really deep fiction about how change is made.
你所要做的就是学习某种语言，你自觉地知道这不仅仅是肤浅的小说，而是关于如何进行改变的真正深刻的小说。
You’re playing a certain role, and you have to justify that and figure out for yourself why that role is valuable to you.
你正在扮演某个角色，你必须证明这一点是合理的，并自己弄清楚为什么这个角色对你有价值。
Last question.
最后一个问题。
You meet plenty of students, and surely, you wonder, will they someday become important producers of legal ideas as professors or as judges or in some other capacity.
你遇到了很多学生，你当然想知道他们有一天会成为法律思想的重要创造者，如教授、法官或其他身份。
Other than the usual — hard work, intelligence, open-minded — what is it you look for as a marker of their talent for the future?
除了通常的 ——“勤奋、聪明、思想开放”——“你还认为什么是他们未来才能的标志？”
Well, other than the usual —
嗯，除了平常的以外 ——
There’re plenty of people who have the usual who don’t do something important.
有很多人一如往常，却没有做一些重要的事情。
There’s some extra spark of something.
有一些额外的火花。
Well, I think it’s a combination of two things, and they’re not unusual in the sense that it’s some esoteric thing.
嗯，我认为这是两件事的结合，而且从某种深奥的意义上来说它们并不罕见。
It’s a combination of being genuinely a self-starter and also being genuinely curious.
这是真正的自我启动者和真正的好奇心的结合。
And curiosity goes hand in hand with a certain degree of humility — not knowing that you’re right about things and wanting to know more and more and more at all times, but also being someone who seeks out ideas on their own, who doesn’t need someone to tell them something, who sees, who hears something and says, “Oh, that’s interesting to me intrinsically.
好奇心与一定程度的谦逊是相辅相成的——不知道自己对事情的看法是正确的，并且总是想了解得越来越多，但同时也是一个自己寻找想法的人，不需要别人告诉他们什么，看到什么，听到什么，然后说：“哦，这对我来说本质上很有趣。
I’d like to know more about that.” As opposed to wanting to know how it’s instrumental to them getting to some other step.
我想了解更多相关信息。”而不是想知道这对他们迈向其他步骤有何帮助。
Jamal Greene, thank you very much.
贾马尔·格林，非常感谢你。
Again, everyone, here’s Jamal’s book, How Rights Went Wrong: Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart.
再次，各位，这是贾马尔的书，《权利是如何出错的：为什么我们对权利的痴迷正在撕裂美国》。
Thank you.
谢谢。