Preliminary Philosophical Questions of the “Democratization of the Economy”: An Insight from the Debate between Rawls and Nozick

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.