[Wikipedia on Hayek about] Social and political philosophy (as of April 2013)

자료: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

as of April 16, 2013

* * *

※ 발췌(excerpt):

Social and political philosophy

( ... ... ) Hayek argued that his ideal individualistic, free-market polity would be self-regulating to such a degree that it would be 'a society which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it'.[71]

Hayek disapproved of the notion of ‘social justice’. He compared the market to a game in which ‘there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust’[72][*] and argued that ‘social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content’;[73] likewise “the results of the individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning”.[74]

• [*] 폴 새뮤얼슨도 그의 《경제학(The Economics)》 제19판에서 이와 비슷한 생각을 내비쳤다. (자본주의적) 시장을 정글에 비유했던 대목인데 아마도 2장 현대 혼합경제(The Modern Mixed Economy)에서 였을 것이다. 자세한 인용구는 나중에 확인해보자.

He generally regarded government redistribution of income or capital as an unacceptable intrusion upon individual freedom: "the principle of distributive justice, once introduced, would not be fulfilled until the whole of society was organized in accordance with it. This would produce a kind of society which in all essential respects would be the opposite of a free society."[73]

With regard to a safety net, Hayek advocated "some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy".[75] As referenced in the section on "The economic calculation problem", Hayek wrote that “there is no reason why... the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance”. Summarizing on this topic, Wapshott[76] writes “[Hayek] advocated mandatory universal health care and unemployment insurance, enforced, if not directly provided, by the state.” In the 1973 Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Hayek wrote:

“There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme misfortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organised community, those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who, for any reason, are unable to earn in the market an adequate maintenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict with the Rule of Law.”[77] (Hayek, LLL, vol. 2., chapter 9, p. 87)

And in The Road to Serfdom [※ 제9장 “Security and Freedom”에서] :

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance—where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks—the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong.... Wherever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself nor make the provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken."[78] 

[71] Individualism and Economic Order, p. 11

[72] The Mirage of Social Justice, chap. 10

[73] a. b.:  The Mirage of Social Justice, chap. 12

[74] The Constitution of Liberty, chap. 6

[75] The Constitution of Liberty, chap. 19

[76] Keynes Hayek, N. Wapshott, Norton, 2011, p. 291.

[77] Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2, (Chicago, 1982) p. 87

[78] Hayek, FA. The Road to Serfdom, Ch. 9