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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

W i d e r q u i s t – T h e E C S O f r e e d o m c a s e 389that individuals are unconditionally entitled to a cash income large enoughto meet their basic needs, it does not provide a compelling reply to thereciprocity or exploitation objection to basic income. According to thisobjection, workers are needed to produce the income that will be distributedunconditionally. If recipients are not held to a reciprocal objection to helpproduce that income, they supposedly exploit the workers who do (White1997; van Donselaar 2009). Although Van Parijs argues that basic incomedoes not violate several definitions of exploitation, his central response tothis objection relies on the concept liberal neutrality. Basic income givespeople the opportunity to choose to work or not to work. These choicesreflect two different notions of the good life, and a liberal governmentshould be neutral between different individuals’ notions of the good life.This response is not sufficiently compelling because the reciprocityobjection is not simply based on a desire to promote one version of the goodlife. It is based on a moral claim to resources. If one party has earned theright to use resources while another party refuses to do what is necessary toearn that right, neutrality is no reason to treat them both equally. Societyshould not be neutral between thieves and non-thieves. A more compellingargument for basic income has to explain why an unconditional basicincome does not violate—or why it is important enough to override—thereciprocity objection.The following section explains a conception of freedom that I believe isintrinsically more compelling than real freedom. It shows how thisconception of freedom can be used to make a clearer case that individualsare entitled to an income that is unconditional and sufficient to meet theirbasic needs. The final section shows how this argument for basic incomeprovides a stronger reply to the reciprocity objection.The ECSO freedom defense of basic incomeMy argument is based on a concept I call, “freedom as effective controlself-ownership” (ECSO freedom). ECSO freedom is the effective power toaccept or refuse active cooperation with other willing people (Widerquist2006). I believe that it is more compelling in itself than real freedom and thata case for basic income premised on ECSO freedom does not suffer from thetwo limitations in the real-freedom-based argument discussed above. ECSOfreedom is defined in relation to self-ownership but it is a separate concept.It is narrower in some ways, and broader in other ways than self-ownership.It is narrower in that it concerns only the control aspects of self-ownership(as opposed to the income aspects). It is broader in that it involves theeffective power (not merely the nominal right) to exercise “control self-
390A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c eownership” (the control rights of self-ownership). I passively cooperate withother people if I simply stay out of their way. As long as any two peopledisagree about whether they’re willing to get out of each other’s way at anyparticular time, it is impossible for all passive cooperation to be voluntary.But it is possible for all active cooperation to be voluntary, if we each havethe power to refuse interaction. It is not a certainty that some people must beforced to actively serve the interests of other people. If all people have anexit option, and the benefits to cooperation are sufficient, it is possible for allactive human cooperation to be voluntary.ECSO freedom is a theory of what I call "status freedom" as opposed towhat I call "scalar freedom" or "freedom as a continuous variable." Althoughwe do not have different words for these two meanings of freedom, thedistinction is well understood in ordinary English. Scalar freedom is theabsence of impediment, restriction, or interference. It treats freedom as acontinuous variable, as a matter of degree as on a scale or a continuum.Status freedom captures another common definition of freedom: the absenceof slavery, detention, or oppression. A conception of status freedom tries tocapture the crucial distinction between whether an individual fits into thecategory of a free or an unfree person. Real freedom, along with freedom asnoninterference, is a scalar freedom, under which a person can have more orless freedom, but it does not identify a cutoff between categories of free andunfree. A theory of status freedom is meant to identify the most importantaspects of what it means to have the status of a free person. A theory ofstatus freedom is not about counting the (possibly uncountable) number offreedoms a person has, but identifying the most important freedoms, thosethat divide a free person from an unfree person such as a slave, a serf, or asubject of a totalitarian regime.ECSO freedom has two components. A free person can interact with otherwilling people as they choose. A free person cannot be (directly orindirectly) forced to serve the interests of others. To have the firstcomponent a person must have the familiar civil rights of freedom of speech,movement, association, political participation, and so on.To have the second component, the effective power to refuse unwantedcooperation, people need unconditional access to resources. Human beingsare biological creatures who need a sufficient amount of food, water, and airto survive. They need shelter, a place to sleep, a place to stand, and a placeto interact with other willing people. If someone can come between you andthe minimum amount of resources you need to survive, not only do theydirectly interfere with your ability to live a decent and free life; they can alsoforce you to do just about anything.
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:
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 388 and 389: Why we demand anunconditional basic
Page 392 and 393: W i d e r q u i s t - T h e E C S O
Page 394 and 395: 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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?