Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Why we demand anunconditional basic income:the ECSO freedom caseKarl WiderquistAbstract (in French)Dans cet article, j'explique pourquoi la notion de "liberté réelle" forgée par Ph.Van Parijs ne permet pas de saisir les raisons fondamentales pour lesquelles uneprotection sociale adéquate doit inclure un revenu inconditionnel. La "liberté réelle",la liberté de faire tout ce que l'on pourrait vouloir faire, n'est ni la liberté la plusimportante dont devraient bénéficier les individus, ni une liberté qui justifienécessairement des allocations inconditionnelles permettant de couvrir les besoins debase d'une personne. Il n'est peut-être tout simplement pas possible de déterminer letype de redistribution qui fournit aux individus le plus de "liberté réelle". La sociétédevrait plutôt se focaliser sur la protection des libertés les plus importantes, àcommencer par la liberté d'entrer volontairement dans une interaction, et celle derefuser les interactions non-souhaitées: le pouvoir de dire non. Cette conception de laliberté fournit une justification convaincante du caractère inconditionnel del'allocation universelle.Philippe Van Parijs’s (1995) Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) CanJustify Capitalism makes a very thorough and challenging philosophicalargument for basic income. But I believe that it has two importantlimitations that inhibit it from giving a compelling explanation why basicincome supporters believe that support for the disadvantage must be notonly universal but also unconditional and enough to meet an individual’sbasic needs. This essay briefly discusses those limitations and then proposesan alternative argument for basic income that I believe relies on a morecompelling concept of freedom, defined below as “Freedom as EffectiveControl Self-Ownership” (ECSO freedom). This concept of freedom providesa stronger explanation why basic income must be universal, unconditional,and large enough to meet a person’s basic needs.Two limitations to the real freedom defense of basic incomeVan Parijs’s (1995) justification of basic income is founded on the notion ofwhat he calls, “real freedom,” the freedom to do whatever one might want387
388A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eto do. Van Parijs argues that the more resources people have available, thefreer they are to do whatever they might want to do. The highest sustainableunconditional basic income gets everyone access to as many resources aspossible and leaves them free to do whatever they might want to do withthose resources—even if what they want to do is to pursue leisure. Onedifficulty with this concept is that “the freedom to do whatever one mightwant to do” might not be the most compelling conception of freedom forsociety to promote and protect. But even as it is, the contention between thereal-freedom-based argument and basic income has to important limitations.The first limitation is that the concept of “real freedom” is so broad andhard to measure that it is unclear what kind of policy it supports (Barry2003). Everyone in a “real freedom” promoting society is entitled tosomething, but it is not clear whether that something is unconditional, basic,or an income. Van Parijs (1995: 35) specifically rules out any connectionbetween basic income and basic needs, opting for the highest sustainablebasic income, which can fall short or exceed the amount necessary to sustaina decent existence depending on various economic factors.The highest sustainable unconditional basic income makes people free todo some things that they might want to do but other kinds of governmentspending make people free to do other things they might want to do. Asmaller income combined with other government services makes them freeto do other things they might want to do. Devoting the highest sustainablelevel of taxation entirely to the provision of government services makepeople free to do things they might want to do; a guaranteed job makespeople free to do other things they might want to do; infrastructure makespeople free to do other things they might want to do; conditional welfareprograms make people free to do other things they might want to do.It is difficult—and perhaps impossible—to measure which policy givespeople the “most” real freedom (Barry 2003). To give a definitive argumentthat the highest sustainable basic income provides the most real freedom,Van Parijs would need some theory of how to measure freedom and how toweigh one type of freedom against another. He would then need to give adefinitive answer that the freedoms provided by the highest sustainablebasic income add up to “more” than the freedoms provided by othergovernment spending. I’m not convinced that it is possible to do so. If thiscan be done, it could turn out that real freedom justifies an unconditionalbasic income, but it could also turn out that it justifies a very restrictive,conditional welfare state with strong funding of public infrastructure andservices.The second limitation of the real libertarian argument for basic incomefollows from the first. Because it does not give a compelling reason to show
Page 5 and 6:
© Presses universitaires de Louvai
Page 7 and 8:
6A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 50 and 51:
Marriages as assets?Real freedom an
Page 52 and 53:
A l s t o t t - M a r r i a g e s a
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
The guaranteed income as an equalop
Page 64 and 65:
A r n s p e r g e r & J o h n s o n
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
Reflections on the limits of argume
Page 82 and 83:
B a k e r - R e f l e c t i o n s o
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Taxation, fees and social justiceFr
Page 90 and 91:
B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 92 and 93:
B l a i s - T a x a t i o n , f e e
Page 94 and 95:
Real freedomfor all turtles in Suga
Page 96 and 97:
B o u l a n g e r - R e a l f r e e
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Linguistic diversityand economic se
Page 108 and 109:
B o w l e s - L i n g u i s t i c d
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Legitimate partiality, parents and
Page 118 and 119:
B r i g h o u s e & S w i f t - L e
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124:
Page 127 and 128:
126A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 136 and 137:
Distributing freedom over whole liv
Page 138 and 139:
C a r t e r - D i s t r i b u t i n
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 158 and 159:
Why do we blame survivors?Jean-Mich
Page 160 and 161:
C h a u m o n t - W h y d o w e b l
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 230 and 231:
English or Esperanto:a case for lev
Page 232 and 233:
F l e u r b a e y - E n g l i s h o
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 262 and 263:
Should a Marxistbelieve in human ri
Page 264 and 265:
L a c r o i x - S h o u l d a M a r
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 284 and 285:
A universal duty to careIngrid Robe
Page 286 and 287:
R o b e yn s - A u n i v e r s a l
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
The ideological roots of inequality
Page 294 and 295:
R o e m e r - T h e i d e o l o g i
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Philosophers andtaboo trade-offs in
Page 306 and 307:
S c h o k k a e r t - P h i l o s o
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 322 and 323:
On genetic inequalityHillel Steiner
Page 324 and 325:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 326 and 327:
S t e i n e r - O n g e n e t i c i
Page 328 and 329:
A federal electoral district for Be
Page 330 and 331:
S t o j a n o v i c - A f e d e r a
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336: S t o j a n o v i c - A f e d e r a
Page 339 and 340: 338A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
Page 368 and 369: Lamentationin the face of historica
Page 370 and 371: V r o u s a l i s - L a m e n t a t
Page 376: V r o u s a l i s - L a m e n t a t
Page 390 and 391: W i d e r q u i s t - T h e E C S O
Page 396 and 397: Linguistic protectionismand wealth
Page 398 and 399: W i l l i a m s - L i n g u i s t i
Page 404 and 405: In defense of genderlessnessErik Ol
Page 406 and 407: W r i g h t - I n d e f e n s e o f
Page 414: W r i g h t - I n d e f e n s e o f
Page 423: 422A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t
show all

Real freedom for all turtles in Sugarscape? - Presses universitaires ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?