Non-Domination as Socioeconomic Independence. Neorepublican Arguments for Unconditional Basic Income

Abstract

According to Philip Pettit „a republican state promoting freedom as non-domination must promote socioeconomic independence”. The article is an attempt to answer the question if introducing unconditional basic income should be perceived as a policy promoting freedom as non-domination. The author argues that one can justify it by means of two arguments, proposed by Philip Pettit: the first argument allows the state to secure people who are economically and socially dependent from forms of domination they would have to endure otherwise; the second one allows for a more undominated choice on the part of people who are economically and socially dominated. Republican justification differs significantly from arguments in favour of unconditional basic income formulated by Philippe Van Parijs on the grounds of so-called „real libertarianism”. The author argues that by treating unconditional basic income as promotion of non-domination, instead of providing individuals with means to pursue their conceptions of good life, we do not have to finance it only with incomes independent from individual talents and limit its introduction to affluent countries.