본 연구는 정부의 존재 이유와 그 역할과 범위에 관한 홉스의 입장과 의도를 규명하기 위함이다. 이를 통해 홉스의 사회계약론이 시장경제질서에 어떤 사상적 기여를 하였는지를 평가한다. 홉스는 그의 사회계약론에서 비록 국가에 절대 권력을 부여하고 있지만 그것은 단지 개인의 자연권과 행복 유지를 위함이다. 홉스가 그리는 국가는 오늘날 의미의 큰 정부라기보다는 엄격한 법집행을 통한 개인의 자연권 실현을 위한 수단적 도구로서 작은 정부를 의미한다고 해석하는 것이 홉스의 진정한 속내인 듯하다. 홉스의 사회계약론은 비록 아담 스미스의 ‘보이지 않는 손’의 원리나 하이에크의 ‘지식 문제’를 다루고 있지는 않지만 그로부터 스미스의 ‘야경국가’와 ‘자발적 경제질서’를 추론할 수 있는 여지는 남아 있다. 특히 인간의 심리 상태와 평등에 관한 그의 가정, 소유권 확립과 교환 경제의 필요성, 교환정의와 수요와 공급에 의한 가치이론, 조세와 복지에 대한 그의 입장, 법체계 등은 이런 추론에 논리적 가능성을 더해준다. 연구 결과는 한편으로는 무정부를 주장하는 극단적인 시장주의자들에 대한 논리적 반박을 제공해 주고 또 다른 한편으로 작은 정부를 주장하는 자유주의자들의 논리적 배경을 넓혀주는 계기도 마련해 줄 수 있다.

Mainstream economists tend to view market failure as a case to justify the government’s market intervention while free market economists try to reconstruct market failure and limit its implication. But even free market economists admit the need of a minimal role for the government to protect individuals’ security and property. Then where can we find a logical explanation for the minimal role of the government? Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory may provide an answer and this is the subject of this research. Thomas Hobbes argued for the rule by an absolute monarch and a social order where all individuals in that society should cede their rights to the strong central authority for the sake of protection. The general understanding is that an absolute monarch controls the entire society and exerts his power on every economic activity performed by individuals. The perception seems to derive largely from the provocative phrase of ‘the war of all against all’ and the title and frontispiece of his book ‘Leviathan.’ But a closer look at how he set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and the principles of sovereign rights based on the assumption of men in the state of nature raises a question about the legitimacy of the general interpretation. Rather, Hobbes seems to have called for a world where a strong governing power can maintain the social order while ensuring individuals’ property rights and their freedom of economic activities. This is exactly what is demanded for a small government in recent days. Hobbes firmly believed that men were so selfish and independent to pursue only his self-protection and self-interest that they were ineligible for the disciplined and mature enterprise of self-government, a situation leading to an inevitable conflict. He called for an absolute monarch only for the purpose of helping men to escape from the state of war. To him, the absolute monarch was merely a means to meet and amplify individuals’ desires. He was aware of the possible abuses of power by the absolute authority but it was not his focus. He believed that whenever the ruler asked for an absolute power, it should be used only to ensure the citizen’s security and happiness. Since the citizens ceded their natural right to the ruler through a social contract, the abuses rooted in the citizens and therefore they were also held accountable. He made it clear that individuals’ natural right should precede any other things, including the state, as he derived the natural law defining the role of government from the natural right. Hobbes had no concept corresponding to Adam Smith’s ‘individual hand,’ the principle of market economy. However, Hobbes viewed individuals’ freedom of behaviour as the first and overriding value of setting up a society and the reason for being of the government, opening a door for interpretation that he advocated a strong but small government. This is not far different from Adam Smith’s proposal for the role of the state. It is no surprise that Friedrich Hayek’s ‘knowledge problem’ could not be found in Hobbes given the underdeveloped state of the economy and economics of his days. But Hayek’s concept of ‘spontaneous economic order’ can be spotted in Hobbes here and there. His political conclusion and the famous title and picture of his book suggest he was a ‘structurist’ supporting artificial economic order, running counter to Hayek’s theory of market economy. However, his discussion about natural right implies he took a spontaneous exchange network for granted. His book ‘Leviathan’ contains many parts that allow us to call him a market defender regardless of his intention. His assumption about men’s psychological state, natural right and equality renders a foundation for the market economy order. His argument that the state should ensure property rights and adopt the exchange economy to increase the national wealth and improve individuals’ welfare also supports the principles of market economy. Furthermore, he acknowledged the men’s right to self-government and believed that the value of human and all other objects were determined not by their inherent material value but by the economic value based on everyone’s assessment, which was set in a contract between a buyer and a seller. This is nothing different from the market economy theory. His thought for law system gives an impression that he pursued society dominated by private laws. He also warned against excessive demand by lazy and idle people on the society and stressed the need of respect for hard-workers. All of the arguments are neatly in line with what market advocates say about the society.

Mainstream economists tend to view market failure as a case to justify the government’s market intervention while free market economists try to reconstruct market failure and limit its implication. But even free market economists admit the need of a minimal role for the government to protect individuals’ security and property. Then where can we find a logical explanation for the minimal role of the government? Thomas Hobbes’ social contract theory may provide an answer and this is the subject of this research. Thomas Hobbes argued for the rule by an absolute monarch and a social order where all individuals in that society should cede their rights to the strong central authority for the sake of protection. The general understanding is that an absolute monarch controls the entire society and exerts his power on every economic activity performed by individuals. The perception seems to derive largely from the provocative phrase of ‘the war of all against all’ and the title and frontispiece of his book ‘Leviathan.’ But a closer look at how he set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and the principles of sovereign rights based on the assumption of men in the state of nature raises a question about the legitimacy of the general interpretation. Rather, Hobbes seems to have called for a world where a strong governing power can maintain the social order while ensuring individuals’ property rights and their freedom of economic activities. This is exactly what is demanded for a small government in recent days. Hobbes firmly believed that men were so selfish and independent to pursue only his self-protection and self-interest that they were ineligible for the disciplined and mature enterprise of self-government, a situation leading to an inevitable conflict. He called for an absolute monarch only for the purpose of helping men to escape from the state of war. To him, the absolute monarch was merely a means to meet and amplify individuals’ desires. He was aware of the possible abuses of power by the absolute authority but it was not his focus. He believed that whenever the ruler asked for an absolute power, it should be used only to ensure the citizen’s security and happiness. Since the citizens ceded their natural right to the ruler through a social contract, the abuses rooted in the citizens and therefore they were also held accountable. He made it clear that individuals’ natural right should precede any other things, including the state, as he derived the natural law defining the role of government from the natural right. Hobbes had no concept corresponding to Adam Smith’s ‘individual hand,’ the principle of market economy. However, Hobbes viewed individuals’ freedom of behaviour as the first and overriding value of setting up a society and the reason for being of the government, opening a door for interpretation that he advocated a strong but small government. This is not far different from Adam Smith’s proposal for the role of the state. It is no surprise that Friedrich Hayek’s ‘knowledge problem’ could not be found in Hobbes given the underdeveloped state of the economy and economics of his days. But Hayek’s concept of ‘spontaneous economic order’ can be spotted in Hobbes here and there. His political conclusion and the famous title and picture of his book suggest he was a ‘structurist’ supporting artificial economic order, running counter to Hayek’s theory of market economy. However, his discussion about natural right implies he took a spontaneous exchange network for granted. His book ‘Leviathan’ contains many parts that allow us to call him a market defender regardless of his intention. His assumption about men’s psychological state, natural right and equality renders a foundation for the market economy order. His argument that the state should ensure property rights and adopt the exchange economy to increase the national wealth and improve individuals’ welfare also supports the principles of market economy. Furthermore, he acknowledged the men’s right to self-government and believed that the value of human and all other objects were determined not by their inherent material value but by the economic value based on everyone’s assessment, which was set in a contract between a buyer and a seller. This is nothing different from the market economy theory. His thought for law system gives an impression that he pursued society dominated by private laws. He also warned against excessive demand by lazy and idle people on the society and stressed the need of respect for hard-workers. All of the arguments are neatly in line with what market advocates say about the society.

Thomas Hobbes, Social Contract Theory, Natural Right, Government, Market Economy