IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/buetqu/v27y2017i03p335-351_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

No Malibu Surfer Left Behind: Three Tales About Market Coercion

Author

Listed:
  • Melkevik, Åsbjørn

Abstract

This article examines the question of private coercion in market societies, arguing for an unconditional basic income guarantee from a classical liberal viewpoint. It proposes three main arguments. First, classical liberals view the purpose of government to be the reduction of coercion, both public and private. Second, a proper understanding of the nature of coercion indicates that parties subject to certain types of hardship are being coerced. Third, where the total amount of coercion is reduced by eliminating the hardship, the classical liberal state must do so as to fulfill its purpose. Hence, this article argues that if the total amount of coercion in society can be reduced by the state employing the amount of coercion necessary to maintain an unconditional basic income guarantee, then the classical liberal state is obligated to maintain such a guarantee by its underlying justification.

Suggested Citation

  • Melkevik, Åsbjørn, 2017. "No Malibu Surfer Left Behind: Three Tales About Market Coercion," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 335-351, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:27:y:2017:i:03:p:335-351_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1052150X17000124/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Åsbjørn Melkevik, 2019. "A Theory of Business Eunomics: The Means–Ends Relation in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 293-305, November.
    2. Verena Löffler, 2021. "Questioning the feasibility and justice of basic income accounting for migration," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 20(3), pages 273-314, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:buetqu:v:27:y:2017:i:03:p:335-351_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/beq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.