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

92A r g u i n g a b o u t j u s t i c euniversally and freely as possible. We need to do this, however, in light ofsociety’s capacity to pay, as well as their relative contribution to increasingthe real freedom of the disadvantaged. Be it in relation to transfers or topublic services, universality has the merit of ensuring that the leastadvantaged obtain the same quality of services as the wealthy. Providingservices for free eliminates economic barriers that can hinder access. Whenequality of condition is at stake, the noble objectives of preventing waste andpromoting individual responsibility should be pursued by tighteningadministrative controls rather than by introducing financial constraints.Public service user fees will always face the same difficulty: that of thepersistence and even the worsening of socio-economic inequalities in oursocieties. That is why those who enthusiastically defend their merits shouldgive greater attention to the struggle for social justice. In particular, theyshould recognise that fees can be more efficient and more equitable only ifthe state makes much greater direct transfers to disadvantaged individuals.Between user fees and social justice there is a link that must never besevered.ReferencesBUCHANAN, J. M. & TULLOCK, G. (1971), The calculus of consent: logical foudations ofconstitutional democracy, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.GRAETZ, M. (1979), 'Implementing a Progressive Consumption Tax', Harvard lawreview, 92 (8): 1575-1661.MANIQUET F. & SPRUMONT Y. (1999), 'Efficient strategy-proof allocationfunctions in linear production economies', Economic Theory, 14: 583-596.VAN PARIJS, Ph. (1995), Real freedom for all: what (if anything) can justify capitalism?,Oxford: Oxford University Press.