来自《耶鲁大学开放课程：美国革命 第6集 第6集》

• 
  
  He asserts directly:
  他非常直接地指出
• 
  
  we're not talking about independence;
  这不是在讨论独立
• 
  
  we're just talking about past precedent.
  我们只是在讨论过去的先例
• 
  
  However, he also says, and this is a quote from him,
  然而 他还说 这是他的原文
• 
  
  "We cannot be happy without being free.
  "没有自由我们就没有幸福感
• 
  
  We cannot be free without being secure in our property.
  没有对财产的安全感就不算真正的自由
• 
  
  We cannot be secure in our property,
  如果未经许可
• 
  
  if without our consent,
  就轻易剥夺我们的财产
• 
  
  others may, as by right, take it away,
  就不会有对财产的安全感
• 
  
  that taxes imposed on us by Parliament,
  那些国会强加于我们的赋税
• 
  
  do thus take it away."
  就是剥夺了我们的财产"
• 
  
  That's really clear, direct logic. Right?
  这是非常清晰而且直接的逻辑 对吗