Should Surfers Own the Fruits of Paradise?

Guillaume Allègre

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Should society feed surfers or should assistance be conditioned to reasonable efforts to contribute? Basic income has been justified by numerous writers from the right to an equal share of external resources. However, Rawls famously argued that surfers should feed themselves. In Why Surfers Should be Fed, Van Parijs gives a sophisticated justification for the reciprocity objection. This article argues that the right to an equal share of external resources cannot refer to abusus (the right to cede) and should refer to the right to exploit (usus) rather than the right to the proceeds (fructus). Consequently, the right to an unconditional basic income does not necessarily derive from the common ownership of external resources. Also, in some sense, a market economy that follows Justice as Fairness principles as defined by Rawls can be defended from an equality of usus perspective.

Date: 2025-10-29
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Revue d'économie politique, 2025, Vol. 135 (5), pp.831-848. ⟨10.3917/redp.355.0831⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
Working Paper: Should Surfers Own the Fruits of Paradise? (2025)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05472184

DOI: 10.3917/redp.355.0831

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().