Although Zwolinski brings up many solid points, there are various flaws to his arguments. For example, he states that a basic income guarantee would be a better solution than the current welfare state, however what reason would the federal government have to justify taking money from people by force? It is important to consider the moral concerns involved with theft. Although the Basic-income guarantee may be less condescending than the current welfare system, that still does not make it ethical in the first place. Zwolinski never provides an argument as to why the state has the right to take from some in order to give to others. (Navabi)
Zwolinski also states that a basic income guarantee might be required on libertarian grounds in order…show more content… However as mentioned earlier, it is simply impossible to be able to tell who is truly deserving of compensation. Despite this, Zwolinski believes that the income should be available to everyone. (Navabi) Scholar Philippe Van Parijs, on the other hand, also believes that the basic income guarantee would be beneficial. According to her, this policy could lead to a more free and equal society. She states that the basic income guarantee is not solely about the distribution of income- it is much more than that. The basic income guarantee is about giving members of society the choice in regards to what sort of life they would want to live. Having the basic income guarantee enables people to stop tolerating the unjust dictates of their bosses, or perhaps pursue a career that has a lower pay rate- yet would result in increased satisfaction in life. This increased satisfaction could lead to better mental health, which would result in better health overall. The main idea from this argument is that the basic income guarantee gives people freedom and equality as people are being given the power of choice. (Van Parijs
