未完成。
《無政府淺說》是支那暗殺團團長 劉師復 寫於民國二年的作品。在文章中討論了政府的存在之不必要，以及建立共產主義社會的好處。
透過將其翻譯為英文文本之練習，以及AI提供文白夾雜的生僻字的翻譯建議，能瞭解這個文章表達的內容。
以下文本取自維基文庫。
政府果為何等之物乎？果於吾人類有何等之利益乎？吾人飢則食，寒則衣，能耕織以自贍，能築室以自安，能發明科學以增進社會之幸樂，無取乎政府之指揮也，亦無需乎政客之教訓也。自有政府，乃設為種種法令以繩吾民，一舉手，一投足，皆不能出此綱羅陷阱之中，而自由全失。世界之人類皆兄弟也，吾人本能互相親愛，政府乃倡為愛國之論，教練行兇殺人之軍隊，以侵凌人國為義務，於是宇宙之間同胞互為仇敵，而和平全失。是故政府者，剝奪自由擾亂和平之毒物也。
A Brief Introduction to Anarchism What, after all, is a government? What real benefit does it bring to humanity? When we are hungry, we eat; when we are cold, we clothe ourselves. We can farm and weave to support our own lives, build houses for shelter, and develop science to improve the well-being of society. None of these depend on government direction, nor do they require instruction from politicians. Yet once a government exists, it creates all kinds of laws to control the people. Every movement we make falls within its net of restrictions, and our freedom is completely lost. All human beings in the world are, in essence, brothers and sisters, naturally inclined to care for one another. But governments promote the idea of patriotism and train armies to kill, making it a duty to invade and oppress other nations. As a result, people who should be kin become enemies, and peace disappears. Therefore, the government is a force that strips away freedom and disrupts peace.
Issues
Should we translate “existence” in English?
政府果為何等之物乎？ What, after all, is a government? What real benefit does it bring to humanity? 自有政府，乃設為種種法令以繩吾民。 Yet once a government exists, it creates all kinds of laws to control the people. 是故政府者，剝奪自由擾亂和平之毒物也。 Therefore, the government is a force that strips away freedom and disrupts peace.
Decision
The Chinese text asks what kind of benefit the government has (果於吾人類有何等之利益乎？). In the revised translation I express the government’s purpose and benefit without needing the redundant word “existence,” which is already implied by the first question, “What, after all, is a government?” By omitting “existence,” Thus, the English translation becomes more direct and rhetorically stronger, matching the flow of the classical Chinese text.
政府果何自起乎？曰起於強權。野蠻之世，一二梟悍者自據部落，稱為己有，奴役其被征服之人，復驅其人與他部落戰，互為敵國，此國家之由來，政府之從出，自今思之，無價值已甚。彼時獸性未去，固無怪其有此，顧今則已由獸域而進於人境矣，以光天化日之人境，而留此獸域之產物，果何為者乎？
What, then, is the origin of government? It is said ,the government, to have arisen from brute force. In savage times, a handful of fierce and powerful individuals seized control of tribes, claimed them as their own, and enslaved the conquered people. They then drove these people to declare war against other tribes, establishing mutually hostile nations. This is the genesis of the state and the birth of government. Judging from the present day, the government is utterly worthless. In that era, the bestial nature had not yet receded, so its existence was not surprising. However, we have now progressed from the realm of the beast into the realm of civilization. In this enlightened human age, what purpose does it serve to retain this product of the beast-realm?
Issues Should we use more classic way to express 起乎? Is beast-realm too hard to understand?
Should we use a more classic way to express 起乎?1 The current translation, “What, then, is the origin of government?,” seems appropriately classic and rhetorical for the essay. The use of “What, then,” sets a formal and contemplative tone that aligns well with the classical Chinese phrasing of 政府果何自起乎？1 The revised version is highly effective because it should be both formal and clearly understandable to a modern English reader.
Is beast-realm too hard to understand?
獸域翻譯成beast太抽象了，而且會讓人聯想到基督教的beast。
The term “beast-realm” (獸域) is strong and captures the rhetorical contrast with “realm of civilization” (人境) used in the original text. While it is understandable within the context of the essay’s argument (contrasting barbarism with civilization), you could use a slightly more accessible term if you are concerned about clarity: We have already established the term “bestial nature” (獸性) earlier in the sentence (“In that era, the bestial nature had not yet receded…”). Given this context, “realm of the beast” should be clear enough to the reader as the uncivilized state of humanity. It is powerful and maintains the figurative language.
政客乃為之辯曰：政府之作用，將以為民御外侮，平爭端，而非以凌人也。則詰之曰：凡政府皆不凌人，又安得有所謂外侮？必政府本為凌人之物，然後得借禦侮之說以自飾。且即以禦侮言之，兩國相爭，必有勝敗，果勝者為能御外侮為良政府乎？則其能勝者必其能凌人者矣，今世之所謂列強皆是也。至於人民之爭端，亦非政府所能平之也。夫政府所執之法律，不過集錄社會固有之習慣而已（此為近世無政府大家克魯泡特金之說）。使習慣而可敬守也，則已無所可爭；既有爭矣，又豈其固有之習慣所能平之者乎？爭之根源固別有在，不清其源而欲治其流，吾未見政府之能也。 今世界政府之惡已顯著矣，歐美之民已漸知政府之無用而厭惡之矣，無政府主義之發明，既如旭日當空，無政府之世界，不難實現者也。 顧世人之間無政府說者，胸中往往有數疑問同時並起，今當有以解其惑。
Politicians then defended this, arguing that the role of government is to defend the people against foreign aggression and resolve disputes, not to oppress others. However, If all governments do not oppress others, then how can there be any so-called foreign aggression? Surely the government must inherently be an oppressor to justify itself by using the pretext of defense. Even considering defense, in a conflict between two countries, there must be a winner and a loser. Is the winner truly capable of defending against foreign aggression and a good government? Then the winner must be the one capable of oppressing others; the so-called great powers of today are all examples of this. As for the disputes among the people, these are not things that the government can resolve. The laws enforced by the government are merely a compilation of the inherent customs of society (this is the view of the modern anarchist Kropotkin). If these customs are respectable and upholdable, then there is nothing to dispute; and if disputes do arise, how can inherent customs possibly resolve them? The root of conflict lies elsewhere; if one does not address the root but only tries to manage the symptoms, I have never seen a government succeed. Today, the evils of governments are now evident worldwide, and the people of Europe and America are gradually recognizing and abhorring their uselessness. The invention of anarchism is like the rising sun; a world without government is not difficult to achieve. However, those who advocate anarchy often have several questions arising simultaneously in their minds. These questions now need to be addressed.
Issues
今當有以解其惑。should be translated as “… these must be addressed as the following:” or “…these must be solved.”?
Decision
法律是無用的，應該廢除。所以翻譯採用useless而非ineffective。
The phrase 今當有以解其惑 translates most accurately to a sentiment of necessity in resolving doubts. Both options should capture part of the meaning. For “… these must be addressed as the following:” Maybe this is generally less suitable. The addition of “as the following” suggests that a numbered or bulleted list of resolutions is immediately coming. While the following text does address the doubts, the Chinese phrase 有以解其惑 simply means “to have the means/way to resolve their doubts,” without explicitly dictating the structural format of the answer. As for the “…these must be solved.” . This is more suitable. “Solved” (or “resolved”) accurately conveys the meaning of 解其惑 (resolve the confusion/doubt) and the sense of necessity (當). The translation currently used in your Revised section, “These questions now need to be addressed” It uses “addressed” rhetorically, which is often a more natural fit than “solved” when dealing with philosophical questions or arguments (惑).
疑者曰：無政府則無法律，無法律則秩序破壞，而擾亂以起。釋之曰：法律非能止社會之擾亂者也，擾亂之起由於爭，人之有爭，由於社會組織之不善，非法律所能為力。觀於都市之地，法律最嚴密，而爭訟犯罪者最多，鄉野之地，往往為法令所不及，而爭訟犯罪者絕少，此法律無益於社會之明證。人之生也，必求滿生活之欲望，生活之欲望在衣食住，衣食住賴乎物產，物產者土地生之而人力成之者也。故論正當之道理，凡能出力以致此生產者，當然能滿足其生活之欲望。乃事實則不然。社會之私產制度既成，有金錢者斯得最高之生活，而不必為出力生產之人。人見金錢之萬能也，於是相率而金錢是爭，紛紜擾攘，孳孳屹屹，無或出此。爭之而得，則驕奢淫佚，視同類為牛馬，不得，則弱者轉溝壑，狡者習詐偽，拙者賣身（奴婢妾）、賣力（僱傭及車夫）、賣皮肉（娟妓），以為苟且之生活。其強悍不馴者，則挺而走險，以劫掠為生涯，視殺人為兒戲，於以成今日悲慘黑暗罪惡危險之社會。究其原因，則莫非私產制度為之階，雖有法律曷足濟乎？無政府則剿滅私產制度，實行共產主義，人人各盡所能，各取所需。貧富之階級既無，金錢之競爭自絕。此時生活平等，工作自由，爭奪之社會一變而為協愛，既無所可爭，又何擾亂之足慮哉！
A skeptic might say: without government there would be no laws; without laws, order would collapse and chaos would follow. The reply is: Law cannot prevent social chaos. Chaos arises from conflict, and conflict among people stems from poor social organization, which is beyond the power of law. Look at cities in our country: laws are most strict and comprehensive there, yet disputes and crimes are most common. In rural areas, where laws often have little reach, disputes and crimes are far fewer. This is clear evidence that law is ineffective in society. Human beings are born to fulfill their desires for life, which lie in food, clothing, and shelter. These depend on resources, which are produced by the land and crafted by human labor. Therefore, logically, those who can exert effort to produce these resources should be able to satisfy their desires. However, reality is different. With the establishment of the private property system, those with money can enjoy the highest standard of living without necessarily engaging in manual labor. Seeing the omnipotence of money, people flock together to compete for it, creating a chaotic and turbulent frenzy, with no one able to escape this struggle. Those who gain it become arrogant, extravagant, and dissolute, regarding their fellow human beings as beasts of burden. Those who fail are reduced to ditching by the weak, to deceit and fraud by the cunning, and to selling themselves as slaves, laborers, or prostitutes for a meager existence. The strong and unruly resort to desperate measures, making robbery their livelihood and murder a game, thus creating the tragic, dark, sinful, and dangerous society we live in today. The root cause is undoubtedly the system of private property; what good is law if it cannot prevent this? Anarchy would eradicate the system of private property and implement communism, where everyone contributes according to their ability and receives according to their needs. With no class distinction between rich and poor, the competition for money would cease. At that time, life would be equal, work would be free, and the society of competition would transform into one of harmony. With nothing left to fight over, what disorder would there be to worry about?
Issues
此時生活平等，工作自由，爭奪之社會一變而為協愛，既無所可爭，又何擾亂之足慮哉！ is a little different from “life would be equal, work would be free, and the society of competition would transform into one of harmony.” because it is hard to tell what life means. Does it mean people or all beings?
Decision
The word 生活 in this context should refer specifically to human livelihood, standard of living, or existence within the proposed anarchist society, not to “all beings” (non-human life). The entire preceding paragraph discusses human social organization: how people produce resources (衣食住), how the private property system causes division between the rich and poor, and how people compete for money. The proposed solution is a communist system where “everyone contributes according to their ability and receives according to their needs”.1 Therefore, 生活平等 means that the basic conditions and opportunities for human life are equal for everyone. To eliminate the ambiguity, we define the translation from “life would be equal” to one of the following: “Livelihood would be equal…” (This is a common and accurate translation for this specific usage of 生活.) Using “Livelihood would be equal” is more direct to reflect the scope of the discussion, which is human welfare and social equality. Potential suggested revision for the sentence but a little over-translated: At that time, livelihood would be equal, work would be free, and the society of competition would transform into one of harmony. With nothing left to fight over, what disorder would there be to worry about?
國家是被人為創造的產物，所以應該justify它的合法性，而非只是單純defend而已！
