Does Locke have a way out of this or is he basically sanctioning an all-powerful government, despite everything he says about unalienable rights?

洛克对此能自圆其说吗,还是说他其实是支持万能政府的呢，尽管他说了那么多什么不可剥夺的权利？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Unalienable rights to life, liberty, and as Jefferson amended Locke, to the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights.

生命与自由不可剥夺，还在洛克基础上加上了，追求幸福的权利，都是不可剥夺的权利。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

But those human laws are only legitimate if they respect our natural rights, if they respect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

但这些人类法律合法的唯一前提,就是尊重我们的自然权利，尊重我们不可剥夺的生命，自由和财产权。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

There is punishment and before you know it, everybody is insecure in the enjoyment of his or her unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

就能惩罚他，不知不觉间，所有人不可剥夺的生命，自由,和财产权都没了保障。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

On the one hand, we have these unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, which means that even we don't have the power to give them up, and that's what creates the limits on legitimate government.

一方面，我们有不可剥夺的生命，自由和财产权，这意味着即使我们自己也无权放弃，正是这些权利，造成了对合法政府的限制。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

Unalienable rights.

不可剥夺的权利。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

First, that the rights are unalienable and therefore, I don't really own myself after all.

首先，有些权力是不可剥夺的,所以我并非真正地拥有自己。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

So the idea that rights are unalienable seems to distance Locke from the libertarian.

因此权利不可剥夺的观点,似乎将洛克和自由主义者区分开了。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

It's the idea that our natural rights are unalienable.

他认为自然权利是不可剥夺的。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

So, what starts out as a seemingly benign state of nature where everyone is free and yet where there is a law and the law respects people's rights, and those rights are so powerful that they're unalienable.

乍一看自然状态是十分良善的,人人皆自由，但还有自然法,自然法尊重人们的权利，而这些权利是如此强大，它们是不可剥夺的。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选