Preliminary Philosophical Questions of the “Democratization of the Economy”: An Insight from the Debate between Rawls and Nozick
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Recently, the issues of socioeconomic freedom have been a crucial concern as well as a popular rhetoric in the Korean public sphere. The free-lunch referendum of the City of Seoul and a legislative discourse over half-price university tuition, for example, have evoked heated debates across the nation. Along this line of public discourse, the term “the democratization of economy” even became a buzzword in the 2012 presidential race. It is important to recognize that the question of the democratization of the economy is a legal question. Irrespective to which stances one takes, these recent legal and political controversies invite us to delve into legal philosophical questions involved. What is the duty of a State in regard to redistribution? On a deeper analysis, what is the purpose of a State? Is the policy of democratization of the economy violating individual rights of citizens? Or is it guaranteeing them? No doubt, both Nozick and Rawls apparently prioritize the idea of liberty. Then, why do they have such a different view in regard to the question of redistribution? In this short analysis it is pointed that the perception of the relationship between State and individual seems to be starkly different. Especially when those two are seen in light of Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes the difference becomes apparent. Note that though Nozick claims to be in the tradition of John Locke, Nozick’s emphasis on the monopoly of force and the perception of a zero-sum relationship between the State and individual rights are more apparent if it is seen in comparison with Thomas Hobbes. On the other hand, Rawls does not see the relationship between the State and individual rights in opposition. Rather he sees State as a vessel which could realize individual rights. However, it has been pointed that if it is seen from the perspective of the purpose of why liberty should be guaranteed by the State, a similarity between Rawls and Nozick could be identified. By taking the Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between the negative and positive liberty, it could be argued that both Rawls and Nozick defends the negative and positive liberty thesis. However, Nozick needs to answer how the least well-off in society could also be able to realize the positive liberty just as easily as the well-off. Moreover, it is not just the matter of the discrepancy of property, but individuals natural and social contingencies. Nozick seems to be silent on these issues. There is no reason for us to take either Rawls or Nozick as the answer to the situation the Korean society is facing in regard to the question of redistribution. Yet, their questions and the method to approach the questions seem still relevant.
Abstract
Recently, the issues of socioeconomic freedom have been a crucial concern as well as a popular rhetoric in the Korean public sphere. The free-lunch referendum of the City of Seoul and a legislative discourse over half-price university tuition, for example, have evoked heated debates across the nation. Along this line of public discourse, the term “the democratization of economy” even became a buzzword in the 2012 presidential race. It is important to recognize that the question of the democratization of the economy is a legal question. Irrespective to which stances one takes, these recent legal and political controversies invite us to delve into legal philosophical questions involved. What is the duty of a State in regard to redistribution? On a deeper analysis, what is the purpose of a State? Is the policy of democratization of the economy violating individual rights of citizens? Or is it guaranteeing them? No doubt, both Nozick and Rawls apparently prioritize the idea of liberty. Then, why do they have such a different view in regard to the question of redistribution? In this short analysis it is pointed that the perception of the relationship between State and individual seems to be starkly different. Especially when those two are seen in light of Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hobbes the difference becomes apparent. Note that though Nozick claims to be in the tradition of John Locke, Nozick’s emphasis on the monopoly of force and the perception of a zero-sum relationship between the State and individual rights are more apparent if it is seen in comparison with Thomas Hobbes. On the other hand, Rawls does not see the relationship between the State and individual rights in opposition. Rather he sees State as a vessel which could realize individual rights. However, it has been pointed that if it is seen from the perspective of the purpose of why liberty should be guaranteed by the State, a similarity between Rawls and Nozick could be identified. By taking the Isaiah Berlin’s distinction between the negative and positive liberty, it could be argued that both Rawls and Nozick defends the negative and positive liberty thesis. However, Nozick needs to answer how the least well-off in society could also be able to realize the positive liberty just as easily as the well-off. Moreover, it is not just the matter of the discrepancy of property, but individuals natural and social contingencies. Nozick seems to be silent on these issues. There is no reason for us to take either Rawls or Nozick as the answer to the situation the Korean society is facing in regard to the question of redistribution. Yet, their questions and the method to approach the questions seem still relevant.
참고문헌 (25)
- 유승익, "헌법 제119조 제2항 “경제의 민주화” 해석론", 법학연구, (47), pp.1~20 (2012), 한국법학회[DOI]
- 이병천, "대한민국 헌법의 경제이념과 제119조의 한 해석: 지배의 정당성 대 민주적 정당성", 동향과 전망, (83), pp.144~179 (2011), 한국사회과학연구회
- 경제민주화, 어떻게 볼 것인가?: 법적 측면에서 본 경제민주화의 한계, In 경제민주화, 어떻게 볼 것인가: 2012 대한민국에서의 시사점, "신석훈", 한국경제연구원, ~ (2012)
- Berlin, Isaiah, "Two concepts of Liberty, In Argument for Freedom" (1999), Open University Press
- Campbell, Tom, "Justice, 2nd ed" (2001), Macmillan Press LTD
- Freeman, Samuel, "Introduction John Rawls - An Overview, In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls" (2003), Cambridge University Press
- Gallie, W. B, "Essentially Contested Concepts", 56 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, pp.167~198 (1956)
- Held, Virginia, "John Locke on Robert Nozick", Social Research, 43, pp.169~ (1976)
- Hobbes, Thomas, "Leviathan" (1993), Hacket
- Kant, Immanuel, "Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals" (1981), Hackett Publishing Company
- Kant, Immanuel, "Metaphysics of Morals" (1991), Cambridge University Press
- Lee Joo-hee, "’Economic democratization’ becomes buzzword of 2012 presidential race", The Korea Herald, 2012-07-05, ~ (2012)
- Locke, John, "Of Civil Government, Second Treatise" (1924), Everyman’s Library
- Nagel, Thomas, "Moral Luck, In Mortal Questions" (1979), Cambridge University Press
- Nozick, Robert, "Anarchy, State and Utopia" (1974), Basic
- MacCallum, Jr, "Negative and Positive Freedom", The Philosophical Review, 76, pp.312~ (1967)
- Sandel, Michael, "Liberalism and the Limits of Justice" (1998), Cambridge University Press
- Sunstaein, Cass R, "Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron", The University of Chicago Law Review, 70, pp.1160~ (2003)
- Taylor, Charles, "Sources of the Self" (1992), Harvard University Press
- Rawls, John, "A Theory of Justice, rev. ed" (1999), Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
- Raz, Joseph, "Human Rights in the Emerging World Order", Transnational Legal Theory, 1, pp.31~47 (2010)
- Rousseau, J, "Social Contract and Later Political Writings" (1997), Cambridge University Press
- Williams, Howard, "Kant’s Critique of Hobbes: Sovereignty and Cosmopolitanism" (2003), University of Wales Press
- Wolff, Robert Paul, "Robert Nozick’s Derivation of the Minimal State", Arizona Law Review, 19, pp.8~ (1977)
- Wood, Allen W, "Kant" (2005), Blackwell Publishing