Copilot
好的。我将结合托马斯·霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）的政治哲学核心思想——尤其是他在《利维坦》中提出的自然状态与社会契约、主权的绝对性、以及秩序与安全优先于自由的观点——来分析陈京元案。以下为中英文对照的评析：
一、自然状态与秩序的必要性
The State of Nature and the Necessity of Order
中文：
霍布斯认为，在“自然状态”下，人类生活是“孤独的、贫困的、肮脏的、残酷的、短暂的”。因此，人们通过社会契约将权力让渡给主权者，以换取秩序与安全。在陈京元案中，国家以“公共秩序”为由限制言论，正是这种霍布斯式逻辑的体现：国家声称必须压制潜在的混乱，以避免社会陷入“自然状态”的无序。
English:
Hobbes argued that in the “state of nature,” human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Thus, people enter into a social contract, surrendering power to a sovereign in exchange for order and security. In Chen Jingyuan’s case, the state restricted speech in the name of “public order,” reflecting this Hobbesian logic: the claim that potential disorder must be suppressed to prevent society from sliding back into the chaos of the state of nature.
二、主权的绝对性与法律的任意性
The Absoluteness of Sovereignty and the Arbitrariness of Law
中文：
霍布斯主张主权者的权力必须是绝对的，否则社会将重新陷入混乱。然而，这种绝对性也带来危险：当主权者可以随意界定“虚假信息”或“扰乱秩序”时，法律就可能成为任意的工具。在本案中，“寻衅滋事罪”的模糊性正体现了这种危险：它让主权者的意志凌驾于清晰的法律规则之上。
English:
Hobbes maintained that sovereign power must be absolute, or else society risks falling back into disorder. Yet this absoluteness carries danger: when the sovereign can arbitrarily define “false information” or “disturbing order,” law becomes a tool of discretion. In this case, the vagueness of the crime of “picking quarrels” illustrates this danger: the sovereign’s will overrides clear legal rules.
三、自由与安全的张力
The Tension Between Liberty and Security
中文：
霍布斯认为，自由必须服从于安全，因为没有秩序，自由毫无意义。然而，从现代视角看，本案中的“安全”并未建立在真实的威胁之上，而是通过制造恐惧来限制自由。霍布斯的理论提醒我们：如果主权者无限制地以“安全”为名压制自由，社会可能会陷入另一种极端——秩序表面稳固，但个体自由被彻底剥夺。
English:
Hobbes argued that liberty must yield to security, for without order, freedom is meaningless. Yet from a modern perspective, the “security” invoked in this case was not based on real threats but on manufactured fear to restrict liberty. Hobbes’s theory reminds us that if the sovereign suppresses freedom indefinitely in the name of “security,” society risks another extreme—apparent stability at the cost of total loss of individual liberty.
四、霍布斯式逻辑的当代困境
The Contemporary Dilemma of Hobbesian Logic
中文：
陈京元案揭示了霍布斯式逻辑的当代困境：
若完全服从主权者，则个体自由可能被任意剥夺；
若拒绝主权者的权威，则可能被指控为扰乱秩序。
这种两难局面说明，霍布斯的绝对主权理论在现代社会需要被重新审视：秩序固然重要，但若缺乏对自由的制度性保障，秩序本身也会失去正当性。
English:
Chen’s case reveals the contemporary dilemma of Hobbesian logic:
If one fully submits to the sovereign, individual freedom may be arbitrarily stripped away.
If one resists the sovereign’s authority, one may be accused of disturbing order.
This double bind shows that Hobbes’s theory of absolute sovereignty must be reconsidered in modern society: while order is essential, without institutional safeguards for liberty, order itself loses legitimacy.
五、结论
Conclusion
中文：
从霍布斯的视角看，本案可以被解释为国家以“利维坦”的姿态压制个体，以维持秩序。然而，从现代政治哲学的角度看，这种做法暴露了霍布斯式绝对主权的危险：当秩序凌驾于自由之上，社会可能获得短期稳定，却失去长期的正义与合法性。
English:
From Hobbes’s perspective, this case can be seen as the state acting as the “Leviathan,” suppressing the individual to maintain order. Yet from the standpoint of modern political philosophy, this reveals the danger of Hobbesian absolute sovereignty: when order is placed above liberty, society may gain short-term stability but lose long-term justice and legitimacy.
要不要我进一步帮你把这份中英文对照的分析扩展成一篇**“霍布斯与当代威权主义”专题论文**，将其与洛克、卢梭的社会契约理论进行比较，凸显不同传统对“秩序与自由”关系的不同理解？