TATEIWA Shin'ya & SAITO Taku@April 10, 2010@Seidosha
Possibility of the Minimal State that Distributes
@@ Order this Book¨mamazonn^mkinokuniyan«
@@ Table of Contents
@@ Japanese / korean
‘TATEIWA Shin'ya & SAITO Taku@April 10, 2010@Basic Income: Possibility of the Minimal State that DistributesCSeidoshaCISBN-10: 4791765257 ISBN-13: 978-4791765256@2310@mamazonn^mkinokuniyan
@This book tries to consider what needs to be considered concerning the way to distribute in the world, namely basic income (BI) followed by Repairing the TaxiWritten by TATEIWA, MURAKAMI & HASHIGUCHI in 2009j. Part I of this book is based on TATEIWA's series in Gendai Shisoimainly from the issue of September 2009 through that of March 2010 except for somej. In Part II, SAITO, who is one of the interpreters of Van Parijs' book that is examined in Part I, not only introduces its discussions but expresses his views on basic income. In Part III, SAITO introduces, comments and describes recent discussions and statements on basic income.
@This book is also one of the achievements of Global COE Program Ars Vivendi: Forms of Human Life and Survival. You can also see the related information via website of this programihttp://www.arsvi.comj.
Table of Contents
‘‘Part I@Is Basci Income cool ?@TATEIWA Shin'ya
‘Chapter 1@The Way to Distribute in this World
@‘Q@An Idea about the Way to Distribute in this World
@‘R@Differences that might Exist
@‘S@Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism?
‘Chapter 2@What supports BI?
@‘P@Understanding of "Jobs as Assets"
@‘Q@Coherency that to What Extent I have Made
@‘R@Not having Gone along the Road
@‘S@The Road of Change of Understanding of Production
@‘T@What the Dead Destroyed
@‘U@What Made us Go along a Different Road?
@‘V@In Case we Still Use
‘Chapter 3@Income (re)distribution is not the only option
@‘P@Other circumstances exist for ditribution
@‘Q@Reasons that Allow Distibution in Other Circumstances
@‘R@Is there any good reason that income (re)distribution is the only option?
@‘S@Criticisms of Inhibition / Intervention
@‘T@Theories that BI Fulfills
‘Chapter 4@Affirmation of Simplicity and Avoidance of Stigma
@‘P@Summary of this Chapter: 1
@‘Q@Selectivism / Universalism
@‘R@Is it possible not to see?
@‘T@Simple Procedure / Small Government?
‘Chapter 5@Labor Due
@‘P@Summary of Parts of this Chapter
@‘S@Attribute of Due / Strongness
@‘T@But there is no forcing
@‘U@Even if there is enough production
@‘V@Although problems do not disappear
‘Chapter 6@The Way to Associate with Differences
@‘P@An Idea of Undominated Diversity
@‘Q@That is not to say that unknown persons judge something and make it come true.
@‘R@What kind(s) of persons' preferences are adopted?
@‘S@What do (should) we normally do?
@‘T@Why is (isn't) that so?
@‘U@Distributing what cannot Be Distributed
@‘V@Being a Bad Judge
‘‘Part II@BI as Ideal with Political Philosophy (Ideology)@SAITO Taku
@‘P@Understanding of what we Call Rent Theory
@‘Q@The Entire Picture of VAN PRIJS' Political Philosophy
@‘R@Fair Distribution of "Gift"
@‘S@Jobs as Assets
@‘T@Note on the Concept of "Jobs"
@‘U@Is the difference of salary caused by that of labor productivity?
@‘W@"Market Fundamentalism" of Basic Income Advocates
@‘X@Criticism against "Equality of Opportunity"
@‘10@Optimal Personal Income Taxation
@‘11@Is simple so attractive?
@‘12@Corporation Tax: How does companies differ from families?
@‘13@Should "gift" be distributed among individuals?
@‘14@The market is a recognition device
@‘15@Assertion of "Based on Needs"
@‘16@BI as Benefit in Kind
@‘17@The Miminal State that Distributes to the Full
@‘18@Confidence in the Market: "How" do we trust?
@‘19@Survival Economy and Outside the Market
@‘20@"Labor" does not necessarily mean "Production"
@‘21@Radical Individualism and Passive Freedom
‘‘Part III Statements over BI in Japan@@SAITO Taku
@‘@Estimate of Fiscal Cost
@‘@France / South Africa / Citizenship
@‘@"Living a life means labor!"
@‘@BI Theory of Business People / Consumption Tax / Sufficiency with the Help of Others
@‘@Motivation / Commons / Communitarian
@‘@Excitement in 2009
@‘@BI Theory of Celebrity
@‘@Criticism against BI
‘Citation from this Book
There is a way of division that divides what exists in the world by the number of people. I (Tateiwa) think that it is basically a good idea...
Distribution should be made due to differences of people and their bodies...It is good to reward people's "labors". If so, it is acceptable to have
compensation according to their labors--consequently tilt Ώ of their income...In some cases, differentiated issue ΐ as "motivation" for labor and
production can be accepted according to how much effects it has. (p.16)
The point is whether we only take the policy of basic income (plus responding to differences (of bodies and circumstances)) or allow the
other ways of distribution. The other ways of distribution mean change of ownership of capital goods and that of organization of a place of
labor. Basically, Van Parijs insists we only take the policy of basic income...Saito agrees with his idea. On the other hand, I
insist we combine the three (i.e. distribution of capital goods, labor and income). (p.29)
Even if we live the same life, what is necessary is different depending on differences of bodies and circumstances. For example, if a person
cannot move his or her body, he or she needs someone's help. I think those who needs more should be able to get the same as what he or she needs.
I think it is natural to do so. (pp.29-30)
In fact, knowledge etc. lead to production for the first time as a result of utilizing parts of performance of jobs. Some people get good jobs and others
do not. Some people cannot get any job. Getting a good job means excluding other people and dominating the job--those people get more by utilizing parts of
assets that are not originally theirs. If so, they should return that amount as tax and we should use it as financial resources of basic income. (p.51)
There are two reasons why we should not only take redistribution of income. First, what can be obtained through production is limited. In other words,
only redistribution cannot provide people with enough and stable money. Thus, we should take other ways. Second, it is good to obtain from participation in
production and labor if there are something that can be obtained and there are people who would like to obtain it. (p.77)
Redistribution and its concrete contents depend on political decisions and people's preferences. We strongly insist the institution of redistribution be
the one who works automatically...Still it cannnot avoid the fundamental instability...People with influence on political decisions might cut down the standard
as a result of change of intention of taxpayers and voters. (p.77)
"Direct gift" to "individuals" should be made...Moreover, I think that for example, the rights to technologies should be donated or relocated...Of course, it is
said that gift or relocation of the rights decrease the motivation for technology development...However, the system of patent is the one which limits the right with
limited years as well as the one which protects the right. The point is to what extent of protection and limitation we can work it well. What we insist is only to change
the way of its adjustment to some extent. It is possible to do so. (p.80)
Under the system of redistribution, the government takes money from each individual who obtains through the market and redistributes it...In the system people might
misunderstand that what they have obtained through the market is originally theirs and tax collection means collecting theirs. Once they obtain, they consider it is
natural to do so and they do not consider it is natural to pay parts of theirs...Since the way of collecting is determined politically, many of them consider they do not
want to pay more and move to the direction...Those who receive only social distribution can obtain less than other people. Even if its standard is improved, its situation still remains the same. (p.81)
If people get a job, they can earn more...I agree with Van Parijs's indication that the job is an asset and it is limited and hard-to-find goods. If so, is it also possible to distribute jobs
to people? Under the current condition, there are some people who cannot work even if they would like to. In that case, distribution of labor can work. (p.82)
I think that change of ownership of capital goods should be justified. For some parts, they exist in the course of nature...For the remaining parts, human beings have
made, coexisting with nature. It took a long time. knowledge and technologies are parts of the things...Using the theory that affirms redistribution, distribution of capital goods
are also affirmed. (p.86)
When people work, they can use various objects, knowledge and technologies. Even if the knowledge and techonologies can be used by anyone, it is the people who actually work that only can use them.
Using the theory that affirms redistribution, division or distribution of labor is also justified. (p.86)
I think that we should not deny differentiated responses according to differences. At least, it is necessary to conduct a means test for (tax) collection.
It is sometimes reasonable to conduct it for benefit. Taking these into account, we should consider basic income or the whole social security policy. (p.116)