Welcome to Bookmarker!

This is a personal project by @dellsystem. I built this to help me retain information from the books I'm reading.

Source code on GitHub (MIT license).

[...] Any actual scheme would involve a condition of eligibility and hence the risk of exclusion. Who would then be excluded from the PI? The criteria would exclude those who devoted their lives to pure leisure. The Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs has written a famous article titled "Why Surfers Should Be Fed: The Liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income." In advocating the participation income, I am adopting the opposite position. I agree with John Rawls, who said that "those who surf all day off Malibu must find a way to support themselves and would not be entitled to public funds." In reality, relatively few people would be excluded (and the costings in Chapter 11 do not seek to identify surfers). The participation condition should, in my view, be interpreted positively. It is an answer to the question, who is eligible for the basic income? The answer conveys a positive message about "reciprocity," a message that is both intrinsically justified and more likely to garner political support.

i kinda agree with him but on the other hand, it's a view that ignores existing inequalities ... like the fact that there ARE people who can surf all day because (say) their parents have money or they won the lottery or whatever; there is still the inequality inherent in the fact that regular people can't. still, PI isn't meant to be a panacea for all types of inequality so whatever

—p.221 Social Security for All (205) by Anthony B. Atkinson 2¬†years, 11¬†months ago