농정의 철학사상적 담론

Abstract

이 총서는 정의 개념에 대한 다양한 논쟁, 부정의 개념의 필요성, 재산에 대한 철학적 담론, 관료의 정책 선택, 농정의 사상적 뿌리에 대한 논의를 전개했으며, 이러한 논의를 중심으로 정책의 철학사상적 담론을 전개하였다.

All policies must have their justification. Agricultural policies are not different from general policies. Discourses unfold based on philosophical political thoughts. Philosophical concepts, especially the concept of justice, are very important ideas for justifying public policies. Justice has been a central concept in philosophical, social, and political thought. In addition, the concept of justice has been a central idea in the intellectual history of human beings for a long time. The idea of justice itself may be a universally accepted norm: equal things ought to be treated equally. Are human beings equal or essentially equal? We cannot deny that they are very unequal in many ways. Philosophically different views about the nature of human beings and the role of government have produced different political systems in the ways of governing, the sovereignty of the state, and the structure of government. The goal of policy science or policy analysis is the improvement of policy making, that is, the maximization of social benefits as a whole.

Treating justice as a value has not been an object for scientific investigation, but it has become necessary to grapple with the possible mainstream of claims to articulate and depend upon the basis of reason. The most important aspect of combining the abstract concept of justice with public policies is harmony between the individual and the society. Although the concept of justice lacks both explanatory and pragmatic power, it has unquestionably exerted a positive and continuing influence on the movement of civilization. According to Jenkins, the concept of justice designates a sentiment or motivating force that supposedly plays an effective role in human conduct, pretends to describe an ideal state of affairs, and lays down rules intended to promote the socialization of this ideal. Justice claims to enunciate goals and principles that hold true for all men at all times.

Nobody can define justice in a single, substantial definition, not because the concept of justice is difficult to understand, but because it is too broad, ambiguous, and abstract to apply it to practical situations. Arguments of justice have focused on the relationship between individual rights and social rights. Philosophical claims are broadly divided into three: utilitarianism, libertarianism, and liberalism. These isms are connected with property right and the degree of government intervention. I have discussed these isms critically and discussed those in terms of public policy.

The purpose of policies is the maximization of social benefits; in large, the cure of social sickness. The task of government is to resolve the problems of a sick society. We must deal with what is felt, not with feelings and with intelligent life, not with the idea of ghosts. The policy maker and the policy analyst should be not a traditional, professional or specific intellectual, but an organic or universal intellectual.

Property rights take a central place in arguments about social justice. Property rights traditionally have been troublesome for social theorists. Arguments about justice are associated with life, liberty, and property rights. Property is, in some sense, the origin of social evils. Public policies including distributive, redistributive, and regulatory policies are closely related to government actions.

Although justice has been continuously discussed for thousands of years and has been a central concept of society, we have not yet developed a theory of justice to employ it to the analysis of concrete social phenomena. We have missed a great deal by looking only at justice, and have neglected the sense of injustice and the victims of injustice. Injustice tells us what must and can be avoided, and once this preliminary task has been accomplished, one can turn with relief to the real business of justice. Injustice precedes justice just as surely as hunger precedes nourishment. Injustice is related to the victims, regardless of who brings it about. Normal justice alone cannot provide a driving force to make society just, for there are too many conflicting claims made as to its requirements, such as utilitarianism and libertarianism. The victims in a social system and the responsibility for those victims are the central points in policy issues. We can see victims in the sense of injustice, not in the concept of justice.

Philosophical disputes raise different ideas in tackling social ills and provide room for compromises and log-rolling that have tendencies toward inability to attack social problems adequately, reflecting interests of different groups and sometimes producing only symbolic policies. This is the reason why injustice is important in policy issues. Establishing the criteria of policies is not easy. Many criteria such as 'fairness', 'happiness', 'basic human need', 'vulnerability', 'principle of generic consistency', 'degree of pain', and so on are closely related to philosophical claims.

Who is responsible for social injustice? It is most important to identify who causes injustice in policy analysis. Even when no one makes injustice directly, who is (or are) responsible for the unjust situation? In terms of policy, social injustice begins with an assumption that all social problems are attributed to the results of government's non-appropriate actions. Primary responsibility falls to the government since the government should protect all people from falling into miserable situations and should improve social justice. Social injustice can be found in various aspects: personal element, interest group, labor union, and government’s poor performance. Injustice is suffering and pain which citizens, public officials, and judges must reduce through political remedies. Government must protect the poor and the weak since the rat race provides opportunities only for rats. Accordingly, the role of public officials in value choice for the policy in particular, between equality and efficiency, is the very critical point.

Fundamental ideal values that all policies must pursue are expressed in a constitution. In the U.S., these values are in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Included are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In detail, 'We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’ The U.S. agricultural policies have been set toward accomplishing these constitutional values. The purpose of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 is 'to relieve the existing national emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing power, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of such emergency, to provide emergency relief with respect to agricultural indebtedness, to provide for the orderly liquidation of joint-stock land banks and for other purposes.'

The Korean constitution expresses philosophical values: justice, humanity, the abolition of social injustice and evils, democratic order, and equality in opportunity. In order to accomplish constitutional values, the Basic Law of Agriculture, Fishery, Rural Areas, and Food Industry expressed that the purposes of agricultural policies are to pursue sustainable development of agriculture and rural areas based on economy, society, and culture to provide safe agricultural products and good food, and to increase income and the quality of living of peasants. All agricultural policies must be based on philosophical thoughts, and thereby is able to continue for a long time without frequent modifications and redundant and ineffective additions.