[Marxism] Does She Exploit or Doesn't She?

["Barry Brooks" <durable@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I recommend this. It goes beyond what it seems to go to.

Barry

See
http://www.widerquist.com/karl/
It has his picture.

http://www.widerquist.com/karl/Does-she-exploit.doc
Does She Exploit or Doesn't She?

Karl Widerquist

Several authors have voiced the "exploitation objection" to the unconditional 
basic income guarantee, arguing that all those who wish to share in the social 
product have an obligation to contribute to it (Gauthier 1986; White 1997, 
1999, 2000; Phelps 2001). Some of these authors aim their criticism directly at 
Van Parijs's (1995) case for unconditional basic income; others argue more 
broadly against all unconditional transfers, against Rawls's (1971) difference 
principle, or against Dworkin's (1981b) resource auction.1 Williams (1999) 
argues against basic income on resource-egalitarian grounds. These authors 
present a distinct challenge to the basic income guarantee from those arguing 
against all transfers because they come from a pro-redistributional 
perspective, but argue only against the unconditionality of transfers in the 
form of the basic income guarantee. Gijs van Donselaar (1997) is an important 
representative of this exploitation objection because his criticism is thorough 
and specific.
Van Donselaar (1997) derives the following definition of exploitation or 
parasitism from Gauthier's (1986) principle of not taking advantage: A exploits 
B if A is better off and B worse off than either of them would have been if the 
other did not exist or if the two had nothing to do with each other. He uses 
this "Donselaarian exploitation" and a closely related principle called the 
"abuse of rights" to argue that Van Parijs's (1991; 1992; 1995) use of a 
Dworkin-style resource auction (Dworkin 1981a; 1981b) as a basis for an 
unconditional basic income allows exploitation. He concludes that 
redistribution of property should be conditional on the responsibility to work, 
for all those who are able (i.e., that there should be no basic income 
guarantee).
Part 1 of this chapter explains van Donselaar's argument in which he concludes 
that, although people may believe that other principles override this concern, 
"a principled choice for or against parasitism cannot be avoided" (p. 132). 
Part 2 argues that van Donselaar's conclusion, that a basic income is 
exploitive, relies on holding recipients responsible for the level of scarcity 
in the world. Part 3 argues that van Donselaar's conclusions come from treating 
work rents inconsistently with other rents. Part 4 argues that a principled 
choice for or against parasitism cannot be made, because parasitism cannot be 
clearly identified or eliminated. In a large number of plausible cases, the 
existence or nonexistence of exploitation is unknowable; importantly, it is not 
certain that work makes a person innocent of

exploitation or that living off basic income makes a person guilty. Therefore 
there is no necessary connection between van Donselaar's principles and the 
responsibility to work.
1. Donselaarian Exploitation and Abuse of Rights
Van Donselaar (p. 3) offers the following definition of exploitation or 
parasitism: In virtue of a property rights relationship, A exploits B if A is 
better off and B worse off than either of them would have been if the other did 
not exist or if they had nothing to do with each other.3 Although this 
definition is derived from Gauthier (1986), let's call it "Donselaarian 
exploitation" because he seems to be the first to define it this specific way 
and the first to employ it to such an extent.
(...)


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism