한국법체계와 자유주의

오병선 한국법철학회 2010 법철학연구 Vol.13 No.3

This paper attempts to analyse the idea of liberalism enshrined in legal codes and practised in current Korean legal system. Liberalism has been adopted as a pivotal principle of Korean law under which Korean society was designed to be organized and operated since the launching of the Korean Constitution in 1948. Embodiment of various liberty rights, separation of power among different government branches, and protection of liberal market order and creative entrepreneurship in economic arena are salient characteristics of liberalism enshrined in Korean constitutional order. However, in everyday life many kinds of legal dispute and conflict of interests have been arisen concerning what would be the proper contour of liberalism in Korean society. Disputes with regard to the proper extent of liberalism in state practices and social life have been mainly dealt with and effectively cleared through the apparatus of constitutional and statutory interpretation under the principle of the rule of law. Thus the issue of liberalism in Korean legal system may be approached by an analysis of what is current upholding by constitutional adjudication concerning the meaning and limits of liberalism in Korean society as well as what should be a more appropriate way of understanding of that idea of liberalism. In this paper after introducing the historical background of liberalism and methodology of liberal philosophy of law in general, the challenge of communitarianism as to an alternative understanding of social fabric and relations has been examined and thereafter a compromising approach between liberalism and communitarianism has been suggested as a viable way of resolving the problems entailed from contemporary complexity of social fabric and relations. The common good-oriented liberalism has been suggested to a proper target of liberal philosophy of law. In order to promote this way of understanding of liberalism, emphasis was made on the necessity to shed a light to essential ingredients of that line of principle, namely, reconciliation between liberty and equality, complementarity between liberalism and perfectionism, and harmony between private liberty and the common good of society. Korean society is now confronting with new kinds of challenge to the path toward a more fledged stage of democratic and developed state. The challenges to overcome are, on the one hand, diversity of opinions and plural values spawning in the society in the wake of deepening process of globalization and the gradual increase of multi-cultural family units are to be tolerated, and also the wide disparity between the rich and the poor in society largely flowing from fierce competition in the liberal market should be narrowed by a way of strengthening the social security network. However, on the other hand, social disintegration and fragmentation arising from hyper-individualistic pursuit of self-interest and atomic indulgence in private pleasure should be regulated in order to preserve the basic value of liberal democratic system and promote the common good of the society. This paper attempts to analyse the idea of liberalism enshrined in legal codes and practised in current Korean legal system. Liberalism has been adopted as a pivotal principle of Korean law under which Korean society was designed to be organized and operated since the launching of the Korean Constitution in 1948. Embodiment of various liberty rights, separation of power among different government branches, and protection of liberal market order and creative entrepreneurship in economic arena are salient characteristics of liberalism enshrined in Korean constitutional order. However, in everyday life many kinds of legal dispute and conflict of interests have been arisen concerning what would be the proper contour of liberalism in Korean society. Disputes with regard to the proper extent of liberalism in state practices and social life have been mainly dealt with and effectively cleared through the apparatus of constitutional and statutory interpretation under the principle of the rule of law. Thus the issue of liberalism in Korean legal system may be approached by an analysis of what is current upholding by constitutional adjudication concerning the meaning and limits of liberalism in Korean society as well as what should be a more appropriate way of understanding of that idea of liberalism. In this paper after introducing the historical background of liberalism and methodology of liberal philosophy of law in general, the challenge of communitarianism as to an alternative understanding of social fabric and relations has been examined and thereafter a compromising approach between liberalism and communitarianism has been suggested as a viable way of resolving the problems entailed from contemporary complexity of social fabric and relations. The common good-oriented liberalism has been suggested to a proper target of liberal philosophy of law. In order to promote this way of understanding of liberalism, emphasis was made on the necessity to shed a light to essential ingredients of that line of principle, namely, reconciliation between liberty and equality, complementarity between liberalism and perfectionism, and harmony between private liberty and the common good of society. Korean society is now confronting with new kinds of challenge to the path toward a more fledged stage of democratic and developed state. The challenges to overcome are, on the one hand, diversity of opinions and plural values spawning in the society in the wake of deepening process of globalization and the gradual increase of multi-cultural family units are to be tolerated, and also the wide disparity between the rich and the poor in society largely flowing from fierce competition in the liberal market should be narrowed by a way of strengthening the social security network. However, on the other hand, social disintegration and fragmentation arising from hyper-individualistic pursuit of self-interest and atomic indulgence in private pleasure should be regulated in order to preserve the basic value of liberal democratic system and promote the common good of the society.

자유주의의 위기

신중섭 동국대학교 동서사상연구소 2020 철학·사상·문화 Vol.0 No.34

이 논문은 자유주의를 하나의 패러다임으로 규정하고, 드닌의 ‘자유주의의 실패’를 비판적으로 분석하면서, 아직 자유주의를 대체할 수 있는 새로운 이념이 등장하여 사람들의 지지를 얻지 않았기 때문에 자유주의를 유지하면서 그것의 문제점을 최소화할 수 있는 방안으로 시민적 공화주의를 제안하려고 한다. 드닌은 자유주의의 실패를 분석하고, 자유주의는 수정되거나 보완될 수 없기 때문에 폐기되어야 한다고 주장하면서 대안적인 이념을 모색하지 않는다. 그러나 과학에서의 패러다임과 같이 이념적 패러다임은 그것을 대체할 수 있는 새로운 이념이 등장하여 사람들의 지지를 얻기 전까지는 폐기되지 않는다. 따라서 자유주의는 당분간 지속될 것이다. 이러한 상황에서 자유주의의 문제점을 지적하고 그것의 대안 이념으로 제시된 시민적 공화주의는 자유주의를 보완할 수 있는 요인을 많이 가지고 있다. 이 논문에서 필자는 시민적 공화주의가 주장하는 시민적 덕에 초점을 맞추어, 시민적 공화주의는 자유주의와 양립 가능하고, 자유주의의 문제점을 해소할 수 있다는 주장을 할 것이다. This study defines liberalism as a paradigm, and critically analyzes Patrick Deneen’s Why liberalism Failed. I am trying to propose a civil republicanism as a way to minimize the problems of liberalism. Deneen analyzes the failures of liberalism and does not seek an alternative ideology, arguing that liberalism cannot be modified or supplemented and should be discarded. However, like the paradigm in science, the ideological paradigm is not discarded until a new ideology that can replace it emerges and gains support from people. Thus, liberalism will continue for the time being. In this situation, although civic republicanism pointed out the problem of liberalism and suggested it as an alternative ideology, it has many factors that can complement liberalism. This paper will focus on the civic virtue of civil republicanism, and argue that civil republicanism is compatible with liberalism and can function to solve the problems of liberalism.

법담론에 있어서 자유주의와 공동체주의

신동룡 한국법철학회 2010 법철학연구 Vol.13 No.3

Liberalism-communitarianism debate has continued throughout history. It has many effects on the legal discourse. Liberalism is different from communitarianism in many conceptions: happiness, human nature, society and morality. Liberalism has an idea that human being is the individual, the possessive, the ecocentric, and the autonomous being. He has a power to pursuit of some happiness by himself. But he is not able to optimalize his happiness without the society, political community and law. Classical and Modern Liberalism detach the right from the good. And they separate the law from the morality. But communitarianism regards human being as the social being. In this reason, communitarianism think that the common good is enshrined in social practices and thus we are able to find sources of the principles of justice from it, while liberalism considers principles of justice as products of contracts among individuals of a society. This article studies how the legal discouses are connected with the liberalism and the communitarianism’s reasoning. For this work, I analyze ① legal reasoning’s patterns, ② the case of adultery, ③ a freedon of conscience and a conscientious objector, ④ the liberalist’s and com- munitarianist’s pre-understanding for legal interpretation, ⑤ the case of abortion and the bad Samaritan. Liberalism-communitarianism debate has continued throughout history. It has many effects on the legal discourse. Liberalism is different from communitarianism in many conceptions: happiness, human nature, society and morality. Liberalism has an idea that human being is the individual, the possessive, the ecocentric, and the autonomous being. He has a power to pursuit of some happiness by himself. But he is not able to optimalize his happiness without the society, political community and law. Classical and Modern Liberalism detach the right from the good. And they separate the law from the morality. But communitarianism regards human being as the social being. In this reason, communitarianism think that the common good is enshrined in social practices and thus we are able to find sources of the principles of justice from it, while liberalism considers principles of justice as products of contracts among individuals of a society. This article studies how the legal discouses are connected with the liberalism and the communitarianism’s reasoning. For this work, I analyze ① legal reasoning’s patterns, ② the case of adultery, ③ a freedon of conscience and a conscientious objector, ④ the liberalist’s and com- munitarianist’s pre-understanding for legal interpretation, ⑤ the case of abortion and the bad Samaritan.

신자유주의와 새로운 자유주의

박성진 ( Park Sung Jin ) 아시아문화학술원 2017 인문사회 21 Vol.8 No.3

이 논문의 목적은 신자유주의의 대안적 사유로서 `새로운 자유주의`를 소개하는 것에 있다. `새로운 자유주의`는 국가와 개인을 대립적으로 보는 이분법적 사고를 극복하고 국가이익과 개인이익 사이의 조화를 추구하는 정치이론이다. 이 이론은 원자론적 성격을 가진 소유적 개인주의로 점철된 신자유주의에 대체할 수 있는 새로운 이론이라고 할 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문은 버나드 보즌켓의 국가 이론을 중심으로 19세기 말 영국에서 출현한 `새로운 자유주의` 이론에 대해서 고찰하고 현대사회에 어떤 의미가 있는지 탐구한다. `새로운 자유주의`가 제시한 새로운 국가관과 개인을 바라보는 시각 그리고 공공선과 자아실현의 가치는 당대의 모순적 상황을 극복하는데 많은 기여를 하였다. 이러한 맥락에서 `새로운 자유주의`는 현대 신자유주의가 만들어낸 가공할 빈부격차와 불안정 노동 그리고 가능성의 박탈 및 구조적 폭력 등의 문제를 극복하는데 새로운 시각을 제공할 수 있을 것이다. The purpose of the present paper is to suggest the `New Liberalism` which can substitute Neo Liberalism. The "New Liberalism" of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century is an unjustifiably neglected of liberal tradition. However, The new liberalism is a valuable resource. It can transcend the discourse of dichotomies that dominate the early phase of the liberal-conservative debate. The new liberals insist that freedom or liberty, recognized as a doctrine upholding individual freedom to pursue different wats of life, does not depend on an individualistic or atomic conception of society. Indeed, a liberal theory can be built on non-individualistic foundation. This means that a public-spirited liberalism integrated the core liberal commitment to liberty with a socialistic solidarity expressed in state provision for disadvantaged members of society. Thus, new liberals claimed that rights are recognized and enforced because they promote a common, rather than a purely individual, conception of the good. In new liberal theory, freedom and rights should be recognized and upheld in the interests of both the individual and the community. The dominance of neo liberalism has inflicted heavy damage on many people, especially poor people. Therefore, neo liberalism should be substituted and the new liberalism could be the answer.

1950年代 前半 臺灣自由主義者의 自由主義 摸索

鄭文祥(Chung Moon Sang) 중국근현대사학회 2013 중국근현대사연구 Vol.60 No.-

This paper analyzed editorials related to liberalism posted in magazine Free China and attempted to trace the content of liberalism sought for by liberalists and their activities. Through such tracking, this paper intended to explain that the content of liberalism became systematized to some extent by the mid 1950s and confrontation and antagonism between liberalists and the Nationalist Party became clearer. In the process of exploring liberalism until the mid 1950s, this article paid attention to from 1952 to 1953. The reason is that liberalism started to be systematized from this period and logical grounds for criticism about the Nationalist Party were obtained during this period. The content analyzed in this article is summarized as follows. Liberalists sought for liberalism encompassing socialism by inheriting liberalism in the 1940s. They understood socialism and liberalism as having complementary relationship and established freedom and equality as a task to pursue at the same time. Liberalists did not agree on the priority between freedom and equality but were in common in that they did not regard both were not contrasting with each other. However, even though liberalists had favorable attitudes toward socialism, they could not continuously use the term socialism because of the conceptual ambiguity of the term socialism and political and social reality in which they had to be opposed to communism and resist against Russia. So-called “economic socialization” was a term selected by liberalists to avoid such perplexity. As Taiwan was included in the U.S.’s East Asian anticommunist defense system after the Korean War, internal and external stability of Taiwan was secured. Liberalists advocated so-called “political counteroffensive” and emphasized the purport of winning political democracy, and criticized the Nationalist Party which pursued Party-State system. However, what should be paid attention to is from 1952 to 1953, rather than the Korean War, in liberalism’s process of unfolding. The first reason was that liberalists obtained the ground for assuming not only communism but also the Nationalist Party as the subject of criticism and opposition by putting up “opposition to totalitarianism” with the goal of anti-communism. The second reason was that liberalists started to review in earnest important matters constituting liberalism such as individual freedom, free economy, realization of constitutional government, and defense of the constitution. Liberalists proclaimed that the genuine meaning of liberalism lied in individuals’ freedom and individuals’ freedom should be all rights and all basic freedom. Arguing that political democracy should be based on free economy, they newly emphasized the importance of free economy which they had been on the alert against and criticized in the past. They also started to take notice of the meanings of constitutional government and the constitution as institutional instruments to guarantee smooth operation of the free economic system. Based on such liberalism groped for and asserted leaning on liberalist thought of Hayek, liberalists heightened the level of criticism against the Nationalist Party. They pointed out the Nationalist Party’s management and control policies on the economy as a planned economy and strongly urged implementation of constitutional government. What is noteworthy is that such activities of criticism by liberalists were oriented toward emphasis of the justification of the opposition party. It came from the judgment that the duty and future Taiwan, the matrix of Free China, should take charge of cannot be entrusted to the Nationalist Party any longer which was pursuing one party rule system. It is self-evident that the more the justification of the opposition party among liberalists was stressed, the more obvious their confrontation and rivalry with the Nationalist Party became.

민주주의와 ‘새로운 자유주의(New Liberalism)

박성진(Park, Sung Jin) 건국대학교 인문학연구원 2015 통일인문학 Vol.64 No.-

현대사회는 ‘자유 민주주의’라는 말을 민주주의를 나타내는 일반명사로 인식하면서 ‘자유’와 ‘민주’를 불가분의 관계로 보고 있다. 하지만 ‘자유주의’와 ‘민주주의’는 수많은 갈등을 나타내고 있다. 자연권으로 포장된 경제적 권리의 자유가 민주주의를 억압하며 부의 양극화 현상을 초래하였고 빈곤층들의 민주적 권리 행사를 무력화 시키고 있는 것이다. 다시 말해 소유권의 불가침성이 자유를 상징하는 것으로 인식되면서 민주주의는 정치적 리더를 선출하는 ‘선거’라는 제도적 장치로 전락하고 말았다. 이러한 상황에서 우리는 ‘민주’와 ‘자유’의 조화를 추구하는 새로운 정치철학을 구상할 필요가 있다. 그리고 우리는 새로운 정치철학의 통찰력을 19세기 영국에서 출현했던 ‘새로운 자유주의’로부터 발견할 수 있다. ‘새로운 자유주의’는 ‘국가’와 ‘개인’ 혹은 ‘공동체’와 ‘개인’이라는 이분법을 극복하고 이를 변증법적으로 통합하고자 하는 정치이론이다. 우리는 이러한 방식을 통해 ‘민주’와 ‘자유’의 조화를 추구할 수 있으며 자본으로부터 종속된 민주주의를 본래의 위치로 되돌릴 수 있다. 더군다나 ‘새로운 자유주의’는 시민들의 ‘자아실현’을 목표로 ‘방해에 대한 방해’라는 원리를 가지고 간접적인 방식으로 국가의 강제성을 운용한다. 따라서 전제와 독재의 위험으로 부터도 자유로운 이론이라 할 수 있다. 그리고 ‘새로운 자유주의’는 민주주의의 한계를 극복하기 위해 제시된 ‘심의 민주주의’같은 현대 대안적 민주주의 이론의 기반을 제공하고 있기도 하다. ‘민주’와 ‘자유’의 적절하고 실질적인 조화를 통해 ‘새로운 자유주의’는 우리에게 새로운 정치철학으로서의 가능성과 혜안을 제공해 주고 있다. Modern political society has recognized ‘liberal democracy’ as a general term which means democracy itself and has thought that democracy is inseparable from liberalism. However, the relationship between democracy and liberalism has made lots of political and economic troubles. Liberty of economic rights which came from natural rights has suppressed democracy and made the polarization of the income and wealth gap. And it has the ability to override the exercising the poor people"s rights. In other words, It makes democracy ‘a election system’. In this situation, we have to seek the harmony of liberalism and democracy and can find the possibility, which makes the harmony, in the theory on the ‘New Liberalism’ which appeared in the late 19th century. The “New Liberalism” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century goes beyond the established dichotomy between the state and individuals, communitarianism and liberalism by emphasizing community as well as rights and liberty. The new liberalism is a valuable resource. It can transcend the discourse of dichotomies that dominate the early phase of the liberal-conservative debate. Furthermore, the ‘New Liberalism’ has the principle of hindrance of hindrance as national administration and it matches the theory of deliberative democracy. The ‘New Liberalism’ has the possibility of new political philosophy and suggests an alternative insights.

자유주의와 민주주의 간의 상호 ‘긍정적 연관성 관계’와 ‘긴장 갈등 관계’ -고등학교 법과 정치 교과서에 대한 비판적인 분석을 중심으로-

유명철 대한정치학회 2019 大韓政治學會報 Vol.27 No.1

Generally speaking, democracy means liberal democracy, which is a combination of liberalism and democracy. Therefore, the relationship between liberalism and democracy forms the most important, basic substance to understand democracy. To fully understand democracy, we must comprehend the relationships between liberalism and democracy, specifically both positive and tense-conflicting relationships between them. Current high school Law and Government textbooks lack explanations of correlations between liberalism and democracy. Since they account political institutions only from the perspective of democracy, students do not fully understand mutual relationships between liberalism and democracy. Under these circumstances, we need to teach them the followings. In terms of positive correlations between liberalism and democracy, liberalism may have positive impacts on democracy. First, freedom of expression influences government by the people. Second, pluralism influences dynamism. Third, constitutionalism influences restricted government. Fourth, economic development based on liberalism provides a favorable foundation for democracy. In turn, democracy also may have positive impacts on liberalism. First, the sovereignty of the people serves as a guardian of the freedom of the individual. Second, political equality changes restricted suffrage to universal suffrage. Third, socioeconomic equality adds the welfare system to liberal capitalism. In terms of tense, conflicting correlations between liberalism and democracy, liberalism may have negative impacts on democracy. First, freedom and competition inflict damage to equality. Second, socioeconomic inequality threatens elections politics. In turn, democracy also may have negative impacts on liberalism. First, the tyranny of the majority shrinks the freedom of the minority. Second, pursuit of equality (the welfare system) impedes efficiency. 일반적으로 민주주의는 자유민주주의를 의미하고, 자유민주주의는 자유주의와 민주주의가 결합된 것이다. 따라서 자유주의와 민주주의의 관계는 민주주의를 이해하는 데 가장 중요한 기본적인 내용이다. 민주주의를 제대로 이해하기 위해서는 자유주의와 민주주의의 관계를 알아야 하고, 이러한 자유주의와 민주주의의 관계를 알기 위해서는 자유주의와 민주주의 간의 상호 긍정적 연관성 관계와 긴장 갈등 관계를 정확히 알아야 한다. 그러나 현행 법과 정치 교과서는 자유주의와 민주주의 간의 상호 긍정적인 연관성과 긴장 갈등 관계에 대한 설명이 없다. 현행 교과서는 단지 민주주의 측면에서 모든 설명을 하고 있기 때문에, 학생들은 자유주의와 민주주의 간의 관계에 대하여 제대로 이해하지 못하고 있다. 따라서 이와 관련하여 다음의 내용을 학습 지도할 필요가 있다. 자유주의와 민주주의 간의 상호 긍정적 연관성 관계에서 1) 자유주의가 민주주의에 미치는 긍정적 연관성은 (1) 자유주의의 표현의 자유가 민주주의의 국민의 의사에 의한 정치에 긍정적 영향을 미침 (2) 자유주의의 다원주의는 민주주의의 역동성에 긍정적 영향을 미침 (3) 자유주의의 법치주의가 민주주의에서의 제한정부에 영향을 미침 (4) 자유주의를 바탕으로 한 경제발전은 민주주의에 유리한 기초를 만듦이다. 2) 민주주의가 자유주의에 미치는 긍정적 연관성은 (1) 민주주의의 국민주권이 자유주의의 개인의 자유에 대한 보호자로 기능함. (2) 민주주의의 정치적 평등이 자유주의의 제한적 선거권을 보통 선거권으로 확대시킴. (3) 민주주의의 사회경제적 평등이 자유주의의 자본주의를 복지주의로 강화시킴이다. 다음으로, 자유주의와 민주주의 간의 상호 긴장 갈등 관계에서 1) 자유주의가 민주주의에 미치는 긴장 갈등은 (1) 자유주의의 자유와 경쟁이 민주주의의 평등성을 저하시킴 (2) 자유주의로 인한 사회경제적 불평등이 민주주의의 선거정치를 위협함이다. 2) 민주주의가 자유주의에 미치는 긴장 갈등은 (1) 민주주의에서 다수의 횡포는 자유주의에서 소수의 자유를 위축시킴 (2) 민주주의의 평등주의(복지주의) 추구가 자유주의에서 효율성을 저해함이다

한국 시장경제에서 하이에키안 자유주의와 오이케니안 자유주의의 비교

황준성 ( Jun-seong Hwang ) 한국질서경제학회 2006 질서경제저널 Vol.9 No.2

최근 한국 시장경제 정립을 위해 논의되고 있는 대표적 자유주의로 하이에크의 경제사상(철학)에 기초하여 형성되는 하이에키안 자유주의(Hayekian Liberalism)와, 오이켄의 경제사상(철학)에 기초한 오이케니안 자유주의(Euckenian Liberalism)로 나누어 볼 수 있다. 여기서 하이에키안 자유주의는 시장에서의 경쟁질서를 중시하고 이러한 경쟁질서의 형성과 유지를 하기 위한 방법론에 있어 한 마디로 시장근본주의(Market Fundamentalism)적 사고를 갖고 시장경제에 접근하고 해결한다는 특징을 갖는 자유주의라고 볼 수 있다. 반면 시장경제의 경쟁질서를 중시하면서도 하이에키안 자유주의와는 다르게 시장경제에 접근하고 경제문제를 해결하는 자유주의로 오이케니안 자유주의를 들 수 있다. 오이케니안 자유주의는 시장의 경쟁을 통한 효율성을 중시한다는 점에서는 하이에키안 자유주의와 같으면서도 하이에키안 자유주의와는 달리 시장경제의 경쟁질서 유지를 위한 정부의 역할을 강조한다는 점에서 차이가 있다. 본 논문에서는 시장에서의 자유와 경쟁질서의 중요성을 똑같이 강조하면서도 경쟁질서를 유지하는데 있어 차이점을 보이고 있는 하이에키안 자유주의와 오이케니안 자유주의의 특징을 살펴보고, 특히 두 자유주의의 차이점을 (1)질서개념, (2)질서이론의 핵심,(3)경쟁, (4)경쟁질서의 유지, (5)독점, (6)사회정책, (7)학문적 관심의 출발과 발전방향 및 (8)시대적 배경 등 8 가지의 주요기준(Criteria)을 중심으로 비교ᆞ분석함으로써 21세기 경쟁력 있는 한국 시장경제 정립을 위한 바람직한 이상적인 자유주의는 어떠한 자유주의이어야 하는지를 모색해 보고자 한다. The representative liberalism, generally classified into two kinds - Hayek economic thought and Eucken economic thought , and recently being discussed for thesis of the Korean market economy, can be compared and assessed. The study of this paper will be focused on them by designating Liberalism based on Hayek economic thought as Hayekian Liberalism and Liberalism based on Eucken economic thought as Euckenian Liberalism. In this paper, the former is characteristic in making much of the economic order in market and accessing and solving the market economy with market fundamentalism thought in methodology for formation and preservation of the competition order in market. The latter, the Euckenian Liberalism, also laying stress on competition order in market and efficiency through the competition in market, is different from the Hayekian Liberalism in that it emphasize the role of government for keeping competition order in market economy. In this paper, the characteristics of Hayekian Liberalism and Euckenian Liberalism that both similarly emphasize the importance of liberty and competition order in market and have different view of the preservation of the competition order in market will be treated and the differences between them are compared and analyzed on the basis of 8 Criteria - order concept, the core order theory, competition, preservation of competition order, monopoly, social policy, the invent and course of scientific interest so that we find out what ideal Liberalism it is to establish the thesis of Korean market economy with competitive power in the 21th century.

The Critiques of Liberalism in Korea and the New Liberalism

Sung Jin PARK 이화여자대학교 이화인문과학원 2016 탈경계인문학 Vol.9 No.1

The purpose of this paper to specify many problems from the studies and critiques on liberalism in Korea and to illustrate new liberalism in the late Victorian Age in England, which serves as an alternative to progressive liberalism aiming to overcome neo-liberalism. Those who have critical views on liberalism make their approaches to it based on the two kinds of frameworks above. First, those who consider liberalism a dominant ideology for the bourgeois class accept it as a kind of ideological device fully accomplishing class dictatorship by the bourgeoisie, in terms of a specific paradigm, Marxist historical materialism. Second, another ideology commenting upon liberalism is an equation of liberalism with neo-liberalism, which argues liberal political groups in Korea have led liberalism in Korea to be converted to neo-liberalism by making their choices in favor of neo-liberal policies. Liberalism in Korea has a dominant position as a main political ideology. Studies on liberalism in Korea have very simplistic aspects, and they tend to make critiques on all liberalism. The critiques on liberalism in Korea only take into account a unilateral aspect, dismissing the diversity of liberalism. In this circumstance, the new liberalism that appeared in England in the late eighteenth century is able to serve as a new alternative in Korea. New liberalism presents a framework for Korea that facilitates a free market economy and an advanced welfare state.

자유주의에 있어서의 부권적 간섭의 의의 고찰

정혜온 인하대학교 교육연구소 2008 교육문화연구 Vol.14 No.2

This study investigates how freedom and regulations have continued to change in the history of liberalism. In addition, this study proposes 'paternalism' as 'the third wave of liberalism.'Liberalism began in an effort to escape mercantilism under the absolute monarchy, new-liberalism appeared demanding national intervention in market failure, and government failure gave life to neo-liberalism again claiming the superiority of the market. 'Paternalism' means regulations similar to what can be found in 'father who puts his nose and intervenes in his son's affairs'. Paternalism can be divided into 'paternal rights as authority' and 'paternal rights as paternal love'. This study proposes 'paternalism as paternal love' against neo-liberalism. There is a big difference between making a modification to national problems through drastic reforms and restraints, and denying the whole role of a state. National administration that modified the side effects of authority will transform into services, not based on regulations or directions any more. It will play a subsidiary role instead of regulations. Most of all, paternalism on welfare is considered never to be neglected because it cannot be met in the market. This study suggests a 'big government' as 'the third wave of liberalism.' However, it premises four elements not to repeat the failure of the past - 'transparency', 'responsibility', 'decentralization', 'participation'. The expansion of paternalism on the premise of these four conditions is considered to be the best alternative. 본 연구는 자유주의의 역사를 통해 자유와 규제가 서로 견제하며 변화해 온 양상을 살펴보고, 이러한 자유주의에서의 부권적 간섭의 의의를 ‘자유주의의 제 3의 길’로 제시하고자 한다. 저대 왕정의 중상주의에서 벗어나려는 노력에서 자유주의가 싹트고, 시장의 실패로 인해 국가의 간섭을 요구하는 목소리가 높아지면서 신자유주의(new-liberalism)는 태동했으며, 정부 실패로 다시 국가의 간섭에서 벗어나 시장의 우위를 주장하는 새로운 형태의 신자유주의(new-liberalism)가 등장하게 된 것이 자유주의의 역사적 변화 과정이다. 부권적 간섭(paternalism)이란 ‘아버지가 자식의 일에 관여하고 간섭하는 것과 같은 의미의 규제’를 뜻한다. 이러한 부권적 간섭은 다시 권위(authority)로서의 부권’과 ‘부성애(paternal love)로서의 부권’으로 나눌 수 있다. 연구자는 새로운 신자유주의(neo-liberalism)의 움직임에 대항하여 바로 ‘부성애(paternal love)로서의 부권적 간섭’의필요성을 강조하고자 한다. 국가의 문제집에 대해 과감한 개혁과 견제를 통해 수정을 가하는 것과, 국가의 역할을 전면적으로 부정하는 것과는 상당한 차이가 있다. 권위의 부작용이 수정된 시대의 국가 행정은 더 이상 통제나 지시가 아닌 서비스로 전환할 것이며, 규제가 아닌 길을 열어주고 보조해 주게 되는 역할을 하게 될 것이다. 무엇보다도 시장에 의해 절대로 충족될 수 없는 복지에 대한 부권적 배려는 결코 양보할 수도 양보해서도 안 되는 고유한 부권적 간섭의 영역이 아닐까 생각한다. 부권적 간섭이 수정된 형태의 ‘자유주의의 제 3의 길’을 위해서는 다시 신자유주의(new-liberalism)에서의 ‘큰 정부’를 전제하고자 한다. 다만 과거의 실패를 되풀이 하지 않기 위해 ‘큰 정부’의 전제 조건으로 다음과 같은 네 가지를 제시하고자 한다. 바로 ‘투명성’, ‘책임성’, ‘분권화’, ‘참여’이다. 이 네 가지 조건이 전제가 되는 상황 아래서의 부권적 간섭의 확대는 자유주의와 복지와의 갈등을 해결할 수 있는 가장 현명한 대안이 아닐까 생각한다.