左翼自由至上主义是一种把自我所有权与平等主义的分配原则相结合的分配正义理论。该理论主张行动主体拥有完整的自我所有权以及外在的共有资源以平等的方式进行分配。由于左翼自由至上主义与自由至上主义、自由平等主义以及运气平等主义的分配正义理论具有某些共通之处，因此，唯有认真做好以下六项工作，才能认清左翼自由至上主义的立论基础与理论特征：第一，仔细考察左翼自由至上主义的理论渊源以及历史脉络；第二，阐明自我所有权何以是自由至上主义之左翼与右翼的共同基础；第三，阐明左翼自由至上主义与右翼自由至上主义之分歧；第四，阐明左翼自由至上主义何以是自由平等主义一个独特的版本，即它与罗尔斯为代表的自由平等主义之区别。第五，以“无条件基本收入”为例来探讨左翼自由至上主义的分配正义理论是否具有可行性。第六，最后回应几个反对左翼自由至上主义的标准意见。 左翼自由至上主义的历史体现为“自我所有权”和“外在自然资源”之间弥合与张力的历史。关于左翼自由至上主义的历史大致可以分为三个时期：1.十七世纪的欧洲自然法传统。2.十八世纪英美土地平权运动的激进派。3.十九世纪的英美自由主义者。这些自由主义者普遍认为，私人财产权的领域神圣不可侵犯，但未经开发的自然资源则不属于这个领域。 当代自由至上主义者所珍视的自由乃是每个个体之间平等的权利，它不是某个人或某个群体的专属权利，自由至上主义者把这种权利称之为“自我所有权”。从消极自由而言，每一个人都拥有控制其自身免于他人干涉或损害的防卫权；从积极自由而言，一个完整的自我所有者有着完整地使用其身体的自主权。其平等的真正意涵在于：每一个人都应当把他人视作与其拥有相同的自我所有权权利的个体。 诺齐克自认为是洛克理论思想的继承者，却在限制自我所有权方面以“弱的约束”方式与其分道扬镳，转而支持一种自由放任的资本主义经济体制。相反，左翼自由至上主义体认到实质平等之重要意义，主张一种比洛克更平等的分配方案。 左翼自由至上主义诉诸一种分配正义的平等主义观念，在这种观念的假设下，自由是正义原则要求我们公平分配的东西，而非对正义要求所做的限制(例如诺齐克所做的那样)。也就是说，人们在乎的自由并非只是一种权利，还包括做自己想做的事的真实能力。如果不平等对所有人有利，这种不平等可以说是公正的。 左翼自由至上主义者认为，“无条件基本收入”可以实现这一公正的理念。 “无条件基本收入”是指社会上每一个人无条件地享有定期领取一笔适当的金额作为其收入的基本权利。其核心理念是：真正的自由不仅是做自己想做之事的法律权利，也是需要有适当的资源支持自己做事的实质性权利。 然而，左翼自由至上主义这一主张面临着诸多挑战，标准的反对意见主要有三：1.左翼自由至上主义无法与罗尔斯的理论区分开；2.左翼自由至上主义与运气平等主义不相容；3.左翼自由至上主义终将要取消自我所有权。 最后，通过对正反意见的辨析，得出结论：左翼自由至上主义分配正义理论的目的与意义在于替最不自由的人争取最大的真正自由——也就是尽可能提高最低限度的真正的自由，换言之，追求每一个人的真正自由。 关键词：左翼自由至上主义；正义；自由；平等；罗尔斯

 Left-libertarianism is a theory of distributive justice which integrates egalitarianism into self-ownership. Left-libertarianism theories of justice hold that agents are full self-owners and external resources are assigned in an equal way. Since left-libertarianism, libertarianism, liberal egalitarianism and luck egalitarianism share some common features with regard to the theory of distributive justice. Therefore, we must find answers to the following six questions before we understand the characteristics of left-libertarianism. The first question is what the origins of left-libertarianism. The second question is why self-ownership is the basis of both the left wing and right wing of libertarianism. The third question is: what is the divergence between the left-libertarianism and the right libertarianism. The fourth is why the left-libertarianism is an independent branch of liberal egalitarianism, or the difference between the left-libertarianism and the liberal egalitarianism represented by Rawls. The fifth is the meaning of Unconditional Basic Income. The sixth is how to argue in favor of left-libertarianism. 1.The Origins of left-libertarianism is about the history of two notions: one is self-ownership, the other is external resources. The selections begin conventionally with seventeenth-century natural law theories in which the idea of self-ownership first came into prominence. The second set of extracts is drawn from Anglo-American writers in the late eighteenth century confronting a situation of concentrated private land ownership. The final set of authors comprises several nineteenth-century left-liberals, all strongly endorsing a private freedom regime, but only if raw natural resources were not subject to it. 2.I shall formulate and motivate a left-libertarian theory of justice. Like the more familiar right-libertarianism, it holds that agents initially fully own themselves. 3.Left-libertarian ism unlike right-libertarianism, it holds that natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner. Left-libertarianism is, I claim, a plausible version of liberal egalitarianism because it is suitably sensitive to considerations of liberty, security, and equality. 4.We appeal to an egalitarian conception of distributive justice that treats freedom not as a constraint on what justice requires but as the very stuff that justice consists in distributing fairly. This requires that freedom be interpreted as "real freedom," not just "formal freedom"--- that is, as involving not only the sheer right but also the genuine capacity to do whatever one might wish to do. Being egalitarian about this real freedom does not imply that one should aim to equalize it at any cost. Inequalities can be regarded as just if they work to the benefit of everyone. 5.Unconditional Basic Income can be defined as a modest amount of money paid unconditionally to individuals on a regular basis (it is often called a universal basic income, because it is intended to be paid to all). Some UBI supporters argue that, the real freedom is not only the sheer right but also the genuine capacity to do whatever one might wish to do, and UBI is what we need. In what follows, I consider what is meant by UBI and discuss the three main perspectives- security, justice and freedom. Inequalities can be regarded as just if they work to the benefit of everyone. However, the most common objection to a UBI is that a country could not afford it (and so on), I will prove that why UBI is philosophical (morally) right. 6.I will reply three common objections to left-libertarianism: (1) Left-libertarianism is Rawls' copy. (2) Left-libertarianism is conflict with luck-egalitarianism. (3) There is no self-ownership for anyone which described by left-libertarianism. Conclusion: what the left-libertarianism goes for is the greatest real freedom for those with least of it- that is, the maximization of the minimum level of real freedom or, more succinctly, real freedom for all. Key Word: left-libertarianism; justice; freedom; equality; Rawls