What's Wrong With a Free Lunch?

by Philippe van Parijs, Joshua Cohen (Editor)

Our politicians insist that we live in a time of unprecedented prosperity, yet more and more Americans are pointing out that the richest 1% of our society holds more wealth than the bottom 90% put together. In this timely book, economist Philippe Van Parijs has a simple plan for addressing not only poverty but other social everyone would be paid a universal basic income (UBI) at a level sufficient for subsistence. Everyone, including "those who make no social contribution-who spend their mornings bickering with their partner, surf off Malibu in the afternoon, and smoke pot all night."Van Parijs argues that a UBI would reduce unemployment, improve women's lives, and prevent the environmental damage caused by overproduction and fast growth. At the heart of his proposal is the intention to secure real freedom for all, because it offers the greatest possible opportunity to those with the least opportunities. He acknowledges that an idle surfer might not deserve a UBI, but that the surfer's good luck would be no different than the good fortune enjoyed by those who benefit from the current distribution of resources.Responses to this controversial proposal Some are in favor of a basic income, but only if it's tied to work. Others find the entire proposal unrealistic and unaffordable. Almost all agree, however, that it is time for us to talk about this issue.NEW DEMOCRACY A series of short paperback originals exploring creative solutions to our most urgent national concerns. The series editors (for Boston Review), Joshua Cohen and Joel Rogers, aim to foster politically engaged, intellectually honest, and morally serious debate about fundamental issues-both on and off the agenda of conventional politics.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Economics, Politics

160 pages, Kindle Edition

First published May 8, 2001

Reviews

[Otto Lehto · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise debate, in the form of select essays and rebuttals, about the feasibility of basic income as an economic and moral policy. Although the issue has been given more breathing room elsewhere, the short articles by philosopher Philippe van Parijs are a good introduction - uplifting and concise - to this most important of issues. Of the little over a 100 pages in this short book, equal space is given to his critics and commentators, although one would have wished for a more protracted dialogue, with a chance for critics to respond, in order to take the arguments even a step further. But, given the short space, the booklet is an easy-to-read dialogue between Parijs and his critics, which serves to start a conversation that should continue in more open-ended fora (not only in books but in social networks the world over) about the powerful need for a basic income unconditionally granted to every member of the community, since that is what advanced industrialized countries need right now.

[Managing my virtual footprint · Rating 5 out of 5]

Let me start by the most salient point of this book: its structure.

This may be the best academic anthology I have ever read, not so much because of the content (which is very good), but the way it is organized.

The book starts with a short essay by van Parijs, who summarizes the position on UBI that he has defended on various books and articles over the years. The other authors then contributed very short texts, where they elaborate on no more than one or two ideas relating to van Parijs's position. This makes the book extremely easy to read, both due to the bite-sized quality of the essays, but also through the clarity that this conceptual compartmentalization brings about. Almost no effort goes into trying to understand the thinking of the authors or untangling a variety of claims. One can really focus in the different claims, counter-points and proposed alterations or alternatives. Finally, van Parijs wrote another short essay summarizing some of the points made and sketching possible responses. This "Sandwhich method" provides the reader with a good introduction to the subject, a variety of points of contention to be considered, and some discussion on these points.

I am completely in love with the structure, but the content is nothing to scoff at either. By inviting harsh critics as much as supporters of UBI, I have changed my mind on certain points, particularly regarding the introduction of UBI and the importance of reciprocity.

Overall, short and easy to read (one can go through a 3-4 page essay every day and be done in a few weeks), I highly recommend it for those interested in serious discussion on the justification and feasibility of UBI.

[Hailey Messina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Took me long enough BUT this was super interesting. I didn’t realize exactly what I was getting myself into because it almost felt like I was back in my philosophy class. Very cool arguments for and against UBI

[L · Rating 5 out of 5]

A forum on the Universal Basic Income. I would look for the other books in this series, they're thoughtful, readable and well put together.
The most attractive aspects of the policy suggested are the simplicity of administration - no resource intensive (and demeaning) assessments of income, credit, ability or assets, and the freedom that it provides to society's categorically most vulnerable, without stigma. Plus, can you imagine what this would do for entrepreneurism? It'd be easier to take start up risks and would also be easier to bring on your first few employees. There's a huge empowerment of labor holistically. Good to think about.

p. 34 "...a UBI or "patrimony"-- a portion of the product of a society that should be shared by all of those who inhabit that society." I believe that to be an argument for the provision of public services, but I don't believe that a monthly distribution of cash is particularly compelling.

p. 5 and it's singing to me
"In the United States, far more than in Europe, the political viability of a proposal is deeply affected by how much it caters to the tastes of wealthy campaign donors. This is bound to be a serious additional handicap for any proposal that aims to expand options for, and empower, the least wealthy. But let's not turn necessity into virtue, and sacrifice justice in the name of increased political feasibility. When fighting to reduce the impact of economic inequalities on the political agenda, it is essential, in the United States as elsewhere, to propose, explore and advocate ideas that are ethically compelling and make economic sense, even when their political feasibility remains uncertain."

[kaity · Rating 4 out of 5]

Universal Basic Income: I'd vote for it.