일하지 않을 자유에 관하여

Abstract

This study examines ‘the freedom not to work’ dealt with in the debate between T. Carlyle and J.S. Mill, which is said to have given economics the nickname “dismal science”, by taking a look at the thoughts of modern liberals on this issue and reviewing the meaning of the duty to work clause of the Korean Constitution and the validity of conditional livelihood benefits subject to work prescribed by the National Basic Living Security Act. T. Carlyle and J.S. Mill thought that everyone had a duty to work, but they differed over whether such a duty could be enforced. Carlyle argued that labor should be forced upon people, but Mill opposed such servitude. Among modern liberals, Hayek, a right-wing liberal who supports negative freedom without interference, affirms ‘the freedom of the poor not to work,’ while Rawls, a left-wing liberal who emphasizes guaranteeing the substance of equal freedom, denied such freedom. Such differences in views seem to be in tandem with the underlying difference that exists between negative liberalism and positive liberalism. Article 32, Paragraph 2 of the Korean Constitution provides that “all citizens shall have a duty to work” and various thoughts and opinions have been put forward as to whether, in light of such constitutional provision, the state could enforce work or labor by law. This study reiterates and reinforces the view that direct coercion is not to be allowed; indirect coercion is also not to be considered, especially in conjunction with the right to receive social security benefits, given the underlying value of freedom and the importance of human dignity. According to Hohfeld’s analysis of rights and Berlin’s two concepts of freedom, granting conditional livelihood benefits subject to work restricts freedom, violates negative freedom, and forces or compels certain positive freedoms to be realized. However, the positive concept of freedom has the risk of suppressing and violating individual freedom, and, from the perspectives of morality, it is autonomy, not coercion, which takes precedence, and rightfully so. In addition, in order to give realistic normative power to Article 10 of the Constitution, which declares that every citizen has ‘dignity and value as a human being,’ it is imperative that one seeks the value of freedom as passively and the meaning of human dignity as humbly as one possibly can. In other words, the value of freedom should be found whilst recognizing that ‘doing what you want and not doing what you don’t want’ is, in itself, good, and the meaning of human dignity should be a quest for respect for life no matter how ‘non-autonomous or unreasonable’ such life may be. Therefore, imposing work or labor as a condition for granting livelihood benefits should be avoided, as it would otherwise perpetuate an unjust system that represents a violation of freedoms and a threat to human dignity, both of which are underscored as the very values that the Constitution aims to protect and uphold.