What's Wrong With A Free Lunch? (New Democracy Forum) [Paperback]

Philippe van Parijs (Author), Joshua Cohen (Author), Joel Rogers (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: May 8, 2001 | ISBN-10: 0807047139 | ISBN-13: 978-0807047132

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 ills: 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 vary: 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 FORUM: 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.

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

In the short essay that is the starting point for this invigorating exchange of ideas, Belgian political theorist Van Parijs (Real Freedom for All) proposes that all adult members of society be guaranteed a basic subsistence income, arguing that such a policy would promote real freedom and solve societal dilemmas like endemic poverty and unemployment. Van Parijs is convinced that once citizens feel assured of their basic survival, they will apply themselves according to their true capacities and interests, better serving society as a whole. His proposal elicits spirited responses, pro and con, from the 15 prominent economists, sociologists, political scientists, lawyers and public policy theorists (including Nobel laureate Herbert Simon and economist Edmund Phelps) gathered in this smart and accessible forum originally published in the Boston Review. Eager to provoke debate, Van Parijs accuses those who value employment under any conditions, no matter how demeaning, of suffering from "work fetishism." Although some commentators clearly want to pummel and bury the "free lunch" idea, others take it seriously and consider its possible practical outcomes. Still others persuasively use Van Parijs's thinking as a platform to advocate other social policy changes. In a mere 160 pages, this book demonstrates intellectual engagement at its best. (May 8) Forecast: Although policy makers and social theorists are the primary audience for this book, the variety and prominence of its contributors, not to mention the foreword by Nobel laureate Robert Solow, may help it find a well-deserved readership outside the classroom.
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist

The New Democracy Forum is a series that presents and critiques innovative and often controversial solutions to problems facing society. Previous titles in the series have offered plans for campaign financing, proportional representation, and public education standards. Parijs is the author of Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism (1995) and a professor of economic and social ethics at the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium. He is an advocate of the Universal Basic Income, wherein all adult members of society would be guaranteed a basic income, regardless of whether they work or whether they "need" it. The benefits of such a plan, argues Parijs, would alleviate poverty and allow individuals to pursue their aspirations, refuse grueling or demeaning work, and exit or avoid abusive relationships. Eighteen contributors (including two Nobel Prize-winning economists) weigh in with their observations--some in support, others questioning the scheme's economic feasibility or moral assumptions. David Rouse
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 160 pages
• Publisher: Beacon Press (May 8, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0807047139
• ISBN-13: 978-0807047132
• Product Dimensions: 5.5 x 0.4 x 8.5 inches
• Shipping Weight: 7.8 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.4 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,330,736 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Perfectly adequate, June 18, 2001

By 

Reihan M. Salam (Washington, DC USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: What's Wrong With A Free Lunch? (New Democracy Forum) (Paperback)

Having read _Real Freedom for All_, in which the author outlines his UBI proposal in detail, I purchased this volume in the hope of finding insightful commentary and sound criticism. Much to my chagrin, I was disappointed. While Edmund Phelps and Emma Rothschild had insightful essays, I didn't find very much in the way of dissent. Phelps certainly did disagree, but many of the others were just wailing like nettlesome grandmothers while conceding Van Parijs' point. Galston's essay left much to be desired, predictably enough. Couldn't they have asked a thoughtful critique on the Right? But again, this is certainly not awful. My favorite Boston Review forum remains Martha Nussbaum's _For Love of Country_, which did have a broad range of dissenting voices and is definitely worth checking out. If you are strictly interested in UBI or distributive justice, turn to _RFA_.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Thought provoking, February 6, 2003

By 

Malvin (Frederick, MD USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: What's Wrong With A Free Lunch? (New Democracy Forum) (Paperback)

Philippe Van Parij's deceptively simple but powerful proposal is to establish a Universal Basic Income (UBI) for all citizens of the U.S. Throughout the book's 130-odd pages, readers are challenged by Van Parij and 15 prominent respondents to critique the idea and to examine related core values and beliefs. The result is a book that has the rare virtue of being thought provoking; over time, it may prove to be widely influential as well.

What I found interesting is that the boldness of Van Parij's proposal succeeds in exposing the fact that much of what passes as conventional wisdom may be surprisingly vulnerable to radical critique. As the global economy continues to dramatically change labor's relationship to capital, it is clear that existing social welfare programs have been based on an imagined world that no longer exists. But while the neoliberal assault to dismantle the social safety net may not be just, it is widely acknowledged. Van Parij courageously demonstrates that change provides an opportunity for the Left to plausibly propose an agenda that moves in the opposite direction.

Ultimately, what at first glance might appear to be pie-in-the-sky thinking rapidly gains currency. On the whole, Van Parijs and his critics show that the UBI (or like policies) can provide a reasonable and humane solution for people adapting to life within today's hyper-competitive global market economy.

In short, I highly recommend this book for students or anyone else who may be interested in contemplating how a better society might come to pass.

7 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Badly needed, June 20, 2001

By 

David C N Swanson (Charlottesville VA United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: What's Wrong With A Free Lunch? (New Democracy Forum) (Paperback)

"What's Wrong With a Free Lunch" by Philippe Van Parijs proposes that every person be given an above-subsistence-level Universal Basic Income with no strings attached. The book includes responses from 15 thinkers, mostly sympathetic to the idea. A couple oppose the idea of letting anyone have anything for nothing (as if that were not already the case), and several suggest what they see as similar but better ideas. The majority of these are based on the idea that enacting a UBI in the United States is unlikely, not that it is undesirable.

This may be right, but even an unreasonable goal serves a very important purpose. Many of the right-wing ideas openly discussed in the media are, I dearly hope, unreasonable goals. But they serve the purpose of making somewhat-less-destructive ideas pass for "centrist." As long as the right wing proposes what it dreams of and the left wing proposes only what it thinks it can get in the foreseeable future, the "center" will be commonly placed further and further from what the left thought it could get. Van Parijis's book is exactly the sort of thing needed to break this defeatist pattern. We need to direct our energies to the achievable, yes, but we also have to dream -- or the achievable won't be.

I'm not convinced that some of the alternatives offered, such as a Negative Income Tax, are either more desirable or more feasible. And concentrating on how best to convince Americans to pay more income taxes is the wrong thing to be worried about.

Our first project should be to free up the tax dollars we are wasting. We should cut military spending, cut prison spending, cancel the wars on victimless crimes, cut highway spending, cut trash-removal spending, eliminate corporate welfare, tax pollution, tax the use of natural resources, tax corporations, tax the extremely rich, tax wealth, tax union busting, tax estates, eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, eliminate offshore banking, etc., etc. The idea that we need to devise a means of doing good that will most readily persuade a large segment of society to pay higher income taxes is hopelessly misguided. (And the idea that people won't want others to have free money while they "have to work for it" misses the whole point of the UBI: everybody gets it!)

What I find most attractive about a UBI is the hope that it would eliminate the most unattractive and lowest paying jobs. The response from certain parties will inevitably be that this will "hurt the very people it is intended to help," that certain people will be stuck with the UBI and nothing more because there are no jobs for them. But this same argument is made against raising minimum wages in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A UBI would doubtless result in higher pay and better treatment for low-skilled workers, but it would also do something that a higher minimum wage does not: allow people to refuse fulltime work and pursue the acquisition of skills.

Here's an idea for a handout that does not stigmatize and actually boosts wages. Surely that's a more valuable trick than a "missile defense system" with a test record that would get it thrown out of the third grade.