下面是出国留学网小编整理的美国总统英语访谈录，采访美国第40任总统：罗纳德里根--从好莱坞明星到美国总统: I Am Good at Debating 我们应该解决我们国立大学的问题，采访文稿中英对照。欢迎参考。
点击收听音频
Reporter: Governor Reagan, you have been quoted in the press as saying that you’re doing a lot of speaking now on behalf of the philosophy of conservatism and libertarianism. Is there a difference between the two?
记者：里根州长，你 曾经对媒体说，你现 在代表保守主义和自 由主义发表了很多讲 话。这两者之间有区 别吗?
Reagan: If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals-if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more indiv idual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say，because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by indiv iduals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.
里根：如果你分析一 下这个问题，我认为 保守主义的最本质的 核心是自由主义。我 认为如果回到解放时 代的话，保守主义叫 法其实不对，因为自 由主义也是对自由人士的误称，今天的 所谓的保守党其实是自由党，而自由党 其实是托利党。保守主义的基础是想要 政府更少的干涉或者是减少中央集权， 或是要有更多的个人自由，而这是今天 对自由主义的一般性描述。现在，我不 能说我同意那些自称是自由党人的所有 观点，因为我认为和任何政治运动一 样，都会有阴影，也有一些自由党人在 不要政府或者君主制问题上有些过了。 我相信要有合法的政府功能。一个有秩 序的社会是需要政府维护自由的，我们 也会有个人强权。一个街区里最强大的 那个人会控制那个街区的所有人。我们 有政府来确保我们不需要每个人拥有一 个倶乐部来保卫自己。但是，我还是坚 持认为自由主义和保守主义其实是殊途 同归的。
Reporter: Governor, could you give us some examples of what you would consider to be proper functions of government?
记者：州长，你能不能就你认为的政府的恰当职能举一些例子呢?
Reagan: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. Government exists, of course, for the defense of the nation, and for the defense of the rights of the indiv idual. Maybe we don't all agree on some of the other accepted functions of government, such as fire departments and police departments-again the protection of the people.
里根：嗯，首先重中之重是，政府的存在是为了保护我们不被彼此伤害。政府的存在， 当然，也是为了保卫国家，保卫个人的权利。 也许不是所有人都 能在一些政府的职 能问题上达成一致，比如消防署和警察署，但是 它们是为了保护人民。
Reporter: Are you suggesting that fire departments would be a necessary and proper function of government?
记者：你是说消防署是政府的必要且恰当的职能?
Reagan: Yes. I know that there was a time back in history in which fire departments were private and you insured your house and then had an emblem on the front of your house which identified which company was responsible for protecting it against fire. I believe today, because of the manner in which we live, that, you can make a pretty good case for our public fire departments-because there are very few ways that you can handle fire in one particular structure today without it representing a threat to others.
里根：是的。我知道历史上有一个时 期，消防署是私有的，是用来保护房屋 的。你的房子前面会立一个徽章，上面 会写着是哪家公司负责保护。今天，我 相信，由于我们的生活方式不同了，我 们能很好地利用公共消防署，因为今天 没有几个方法能让我们在不危胁他人的 情况下自己用某种方式来应对火灾。
Reporter: How would you distinguish “socialized” fire departments and “socialized” fire insurance companies? Or would you be in favor of socialized fire insurance also?
记者：你怎么区分“公费”消防署和 “公费”火灾保险公司?或者你也支持 公费火灾保险吗?
Reagan: No. Nor am I in favor of socialized medicine. But, there’s bound to be a grey area，an area in there in which you ask is this government protecting us from ourselves or is this government protecting us from each other. I don't believe in a government that protects us saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle-the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights-to be stupid. But to show you how these grey areas can creep in, the other day I was saying this to a man who happens to be a neurosurgeon, and who has treated many cases of this particular kind of injury and accident, and he disagreed with me on this issue. He disagreed with me on the basis of the indiv iduals who become public charges as a result of permanent damage-he has pointed to an area where it does go over into not just hurting the indiv iduals directly involved but now imposes on others also. I only use this extreme example to show that when we come down to government and what it should or should not do for the good of the people and for protecting us from each other, you do come into some grey areas and I think here there will be disagreements between conservatives and libertarians. So, I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government’s involvement in things that are not government’s proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.
里根：不是的。我也不赞成公费医疗制 度。但是肯定有一块灰色地带，你会问 政府是否在保护我们免受自己的侵害的 问题，或者这个政府是不是保护我们免 受彼此的侵害。我不相信一个保护我们 免受自己侵害的政府。我已经通过这个 例子讲了很多次，比如有个人骑着摩托自己的装备和摩托车制定了一些条款， 开汽车也同理。但是如果政府说因为摩 托车事故中多数会造成头部损伤，所以 政府就要强令人们带着头盔，我就完全 不同意了。如果他骑着摩托车但是不带 头盔，我会想他真笨，但是这是我们神圣的权利之----变笨。为了显示可以进入这些灰色地带，前几天我碰见了一 名神经外科医生，他处理了很多这样的 特别伤害和事故，我这么跟他讲，但他不同意我 的看法。 他不同意 我的看法 的基础是 由于造成 永久伤 害，个人 受到公众 指控—— 他指出有 些区域不仅仅是直接伤害了个人，而且也影响了 其他人。我使用这个极端的例子是想说 谈判政府为了人民和保护我们免受彼此 伤害时，在哪些能做，哪些不能做的问 题上，这就进入了灰色地带。我认为保 守人士和自由人士这里就会有分歧。所 以，我认为政府有合法的功能。但是 我也认为我们今天最大的威胁来自于 政府插手那些不在政府职能范围内的 事务。在那些事情上，政府的失败记 录举不胜举。
Reporter: Could you give some examples of what areas you’re talking about?
记者：你能不能给我们举例讲一下你说 的是哪些地带?
Reagan: Well, many of them in the regulatory fields of our private enterprise sector. We’ve noticed, for example, that for half-a-century the railroads have been saying that they could take care of themselves and would have no problems—if they could be freed from a great many government regulations and the ICC. Finally their plight was such that the government had to take over the passenger traffic with Amtrak and one of the first things that Amtrak did was ask to be relieved of the ICC regulations!
里根：嗯，很多是我们私人企业的监管 区域。我们注意到，比如，长达半个世 纪以来就宣称铁路能够自我保护，不会 出问题——如果他们能够从众多政府立 法和国际商会中解脱出来。最终他们宣 誓政府必须和美铁一起接管乘客交通， 其中美铁做的首要的事情之一是脱离国 际商会的法规。
Reporter: Are you in favor of decontrolling the railroads and the other regulated industries?
记者：你支持解除对铁路和其他调整工 业的控制吗?
Reagan: Yes. Again this comes down to the point at which we get into regulations that are for the protection of the people. I don’t think anyone suggests that we should do away with those regulations which insure safety for the passengers in transportation. I don’t think that we should do away with those regulations in the field of pure foods and so forth, that make sure that some unscrupulous indiv idual can’t sell us canned meat that gives us botulism. But, we start with those legitimate areas and then we go on and regulations just keep spreading like spores of a fungus until we find that they literally are taking away the rights of management to make business decisions with regard to their competition.
里根：是的，我们又回到我们立法保护 人民这一点了。我认为没有人会建议我 们解除那些保证乘客安全的立法。我认 为我们不该放弃那些监管食物等相关东 西的法规，那些法规保障了不会有肆无 忌惮的人卖给我们罐装肉食或者让我们 中毒。但是，我们从那些合法地带开 始，之后继续像霉菌一样四散立法，直到我们 发现他 们实质 上正在 夺走做 出竞争 相关的 商业决 定的管 理权。
Reporter: Governor，are you familiar with economist Sam Peltzman’s work on the Food and Drug Administration, where he pointed out the high cost of entry now and the very high cost of developing and bringing in new drugs to the market?
记者：州长，你熟悉经济学家萨姆?佩 兹曼的食物和药品管理的著作吗?他提 出现在新品进入市场的高额的成本以及 开发和引进新药物的高成本问题。
Reagan: Well, I've used some figures of my own-maybe he’s responsible for them. I’ve been trying to keep track of some of these things and in my own talks have pointed out that now we’ve added about $200,000,000 to the cost of drugs because of these regulations. I know of one particular drug firm, which just a few years ago, could license a drug with some 70 pages of supporting data. Today it takes that same company 73,000 pages for an additional drug. I know that there’s been about a 60 percent drop in the development of new drugs in this country. But here again, it’s the degree to which it’s done. We want the protection of knowing that a drug on the shelf is not going to poison us or have an adverse effect, and yet the FDA has gone beyond that point. It’s a little bit like the cyclamate question-: feeding 20 rats cyclamates and then destroying millions of dollars of artificially sweetened soft drinks because it’s “hazardous to our health,” and then only years later, do we find out that to eat an amount of cyclamate equivalent to what the rats were given we'd have to drink 875 bottles of soft drink a day!
里根：嗯，我自己也有一些数据——可 能这些数据就来自于他。我一直关注一 些东西，我在谈话中也曾指出，现在由 于那些法规，我们在药品成本上增加了两亿美元。我知道有一家药品公司，几 年以前还可以用70页的支持数据来得 到药品许可。今天同一家公司要想拿到 一个新药许可，需要写7.3万页书面说 明。我知道国家的新药研发已经降低 了 60%。但是这是已经发生的程度。我 们想要保护架上已有的药品不会有毒或 者是反作用，但是药物管理局则越过了 这条线。这就有点像环磺酸盐问题：给 20只老鼠喂了环磺酸盐，然后就毁掉了 价值几百万美元的人工加甜软饮料，因 为它“对健康有害”，而仅仅数年之后， 我们却发现要想吃到和当年喂老鼠的剂 量一致的环磺酸盐我们需要一天喝875 瓶软饮料。
Reporter: Don’t you think the Food and Drug Administration basically serves the Big Brother role, the protectionist role, and that the free market could adequately deal with it in the absence of the regulations?
记者：你不认为食物药品管理局是为那 些老大哥的角色服务的吗?扮演着保护 主义的角色，自由市场完全可以在没有 法规的情况下应对?
Reagan: Well, if they would. And I’m sure the free market would today, but remember that the FDA was born at a time when people in this country were being killed. Back in the Spanish American War, for instance, we lost soldiers who were sent poisoned canned meat and this is when the scandal erupted that led to the pure food laws. Maybe what we should look at are those areas where government should be a “Big Brother” in ensuring that the private sector is doing the job. In other words, suppose the whole food industry would police itself. Then I think government would have a legitimate place in keeping a watchful eye on them to make sure that industry did not gradually，for profit, erode the standards. This I think could hold true with a great many other things.
里根：嗯，如果他们当时可以做到的 话。我确信今天的自由市场会这样，但 是记住，食物药品管理局出现在这个国 家的人们被残害的时代。回到美西战争 那个时候，我们失去了那些因为吃到有毒的罐装肉而死去的士兵，这就是制 定食品法的导火绯闻事件。也许我们应 该看看那些政府应该担当“老大哥”角 色的领域以确保是私营部门在做这个工 作。换言之，假设这个食品业是政治本 身，我认为政府在监管它们时就会有合 法的位置，来保证食品业不会逐渐为了 利润而降低标准。我认为这也适用于很 多其他的东西。
Reporter: These days, most private universities are the recipients of Federal funds. Do you think that it’s proper to use tax revenue to finance higher education?
记者：这些天，很多私立大学收到了联 邦财团的资助。你认为用税收财政收入 来资助高等教育合适吗?
Reagan: Well, if I answer that question then I’m answering that we should do away with our state universities and frankly I haven’t given enough thought to what could be a counter-system. At first, there was a great opposition to most of the Federal revenues that are going to education on the part of many educators. Once the money was there, however, it was like the farmer who went into the woods and came back with the wagon loads of wild pigs.
里根：嗯，如果我回答这个问题，我的 答案会是我们应该改革我们的国立大 学，坦率地说，我没有对相反的体系做 充分的思考。首先，很多教育者反对将 大部分的联邦财政投入到教育领域。然 而，一旦投入了钱就像农民走进树林， 回来却推着几车野猪一样。
推荐阅读：