Tout comme dans les autres pays, la situation économique québécoise est des plus délicates en ce début de siècle. À la suite de la mondialisation qui s'est déployée à partir des années 1970, nous assistons à la précarisation des emplois et à la diminution du filet social. Plusieurs voies ont été explorées pour trouver des solutions à ces problèmes. D'un côté, certains croient à une relance économique sans effectuer aucun changement au modèle socio-économique. Pour ces derniers, le système économique en place répond bien à la situation et, dans la perspective libérale traditionnelle, on s'en remet à la volonté des individus bien plus qu'aux effets de système. De l'autre côté, ceux qui ont perdu la foi proposent diverses solutions telles que le partage du travail, la subvention du travail faiblement rémunéré, la formation continue ou la réinsertion sociale. Une autre mesure est de plus en plus discutée par les chercheurs sans pour autant retenir toute l'attention qu'elle mérite : l'allocation universelle. Cette mesure de remplacement est celle qui est étudiée dans ce mémoire. Évidemment, l'instauration d'une allocation universelle doit être assujettie à plusieurs éclaircissements. Car un certain nombre de paradoxes et de malentendus ont été notés au fil des discussions sur ce débat. Il faut encore montrer que l'instauration d'une allocation universelle est le meilleur moyen pour contourner la pauvreté des pays occidentaux et particulièrement au Québec. La société québécoise possède plusieurs atouts favorisant l'instauration d'un tel revenu. Ce mémoire de maîtrise tente d'en faire la démonstration.

Submitted by isabela.moljf@hotmail.com (isabela.moljf@hotmail.com) on 2016-08-09T12:52:32Z No. of bitstreams: 1 brunogoulartcunha.pdf: 863127 bytes, checksum: 3eaad549fbab09cacbe1874143d29da5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-08-09T14:39:35Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 brunogoulartcunha.pdf: 863127 bytes, checksum: 3eaad549fbab09cacbe1874143d29da5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Oliveira (adriana.oliveira@ufjf.edu.br) on 2016-08-09T14:40:50Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 brunogoulartcunha.pdf: 863127 bytes, checksum: 3eaad549fbab09cacbe1874143d29da5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-09T14:40:50Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 brunogoulartcunha.pdf: 863127 bytes, checksum: 3eaad549fbab09cacbe1874143d29da5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-04-14 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / A presente dissertação volta-se a tratar de uma das mais conhecidas proposições do filósofo e economista belga Philippe Van Parijs: a ideia de que a comunidade política, sobretudo em nome da liberdade, mas também no da igualdade, deve distribuir a todos os seus membros uma determinada quantia em dinheiro e com certa periodicidade, sem exigir contrapartida e comprovação de renda. Um direito, ou benefício estritamente individual, a que ele deu nome de renda básica de cidadania. O objetivo deste trabalho não é discorrer sobre os aspectos econômicos, políticos e sociológicos, pertinentes ao tema. Mas sim, avaliar algo anterior, o argumento principal de que se vale Van Parijs para defender sua proposta: a ideia de justiça. O objetivo é, para ser mais claro, analisar a citada inovação tendo-se como parâmetro a tradição de se pensar sobre justiça e distribuição. A pretensão é aferir se a ideia de justiça distributiva é efetivamente capaz de fundamentar aquele modelo tão amplo de distribuição de bens, tal como o filósofo afirma ser possível. No primeiro capítulo o esforço estará em retratar a mencionada “tradição”, em evidenciar o que se quer dizer quando se utiliza esta expressão, que pode soar ambígua ou imprecisa. A meta é demonstrar que existem motivos para se buscar a história do tema e que, apesar das mudanças de sentido e de significado, é possível se falar em um “conteúdo mínimo” para o termo justiça distributiva, extraído do conceito original criado por Aristóteles e do conceito moderno fixado por John Rawls. Defende-se que a expressão justiça distributiva aparece sempre relacionada à ideia de proporcionalidade. O segundo capítulo estará voltado a apresentar a teoria da justiça concebida pelo filósofo belga: suas bases, os princípios que lhe dão forma, a posição que ela ocupa em meio às demais teorias e o sistema no qual ela seria plenamente aplicável. Por fim, o terceiro capítulo trará a forma em si pela qual a distribuição ganha corpo nesta teoria: a renda básica. A intenção é descrevê-la em pormenores. / This study focuses on one of the best known propositions by Belgian philosopher and economist Philippe Van Parijs: the idea that the political community, especially in the name of freedom, but also of equality, must distribute to all its members a certain amount of money, with some frequency, without requiring consideration and proof of income. A right, or strictly individual benefit, called basic income. The objective of this study is not to talk about the economic, political and sociological aspects that are relevant to the topic. Rather, it seeks to review something previous, the main argument that Van Parijs leverages to defend his proposal: the idea of justice. To make it clearer, the goal is to review the aforementioned innovation by taking the tradition of thinking about justice and distribution as a parameter. The intention is to assess whether the idea of distributive justice is effectively able to support that broad model of distribution of property, as the philosopher claims to be possible. In the first chapter the effort is to portray the aforementioned "tradition" and prove what is meant when this expression is used, which may sound ambiguous or uncertain. The goal is to demonstrate that there are grounds to pursue the history of this topic and that, despite changes in meaning, it is possible to speak of a "minimum content" for the term distributive justice, as extracted from the original concept created by Aristotle and the modern concept set by John Rawls. It is argued that the expression distributive justice has always been related to the idea of proportionality. The second chapter presents the theory of justice as designed by the Belgian philosopher: its foundations, the principles that shape it, the position it occupies among other theories, and the system in which it would be fully applicable. Finally, the third chapter will present the form itself through which distribution is embodied in this theory: the basic income. The intention is to describe it in detail.

Precis The Thesis comprehensively describes and explains basic concepts of Steiner-Vallentyne Left-Libertarianism. The introductory part compares this school of Left-Libertarianism with other approaches and advocates the method of critical theory of society being used, which was formulated by Marek Hrubec, successing classical authors of critical theory. This method divides the analyzed phenomena into three phases - critique, explanation and normativity. The critical phase describes relation between the analyzed and reality, while defining the analyzed against it. Explanation clarifies positive elements, which are consequent from the critique of reality and ultimately, the normative phase formulates a specific conception of the elements' realization. In this Diploma Thesis the critical phase is represented by defition of Left-Libertarianism against dominant streams in contemporary political philosophy, with the accent on its differentiation from related approaches, constituting their conception on one's freedom - especially rawlsian liberalism and classical libertarianism. Explanatory phase is dedicated to basic concepts of Left-Libertarianism, their historical roots and theoretical principles on which they are constituted. Finally, the normative phase presents the concept of universal basic income, which...

L’objection de l’exploitation est couramment soulevée lorsqu’il est question de l’implémentation d’un revenu minimum garanti. Celle-ci stipule que le versement d’un revenu minimum sans attente de contrepartie est fondamentalement injuste pour les travailleurs. Ce mémoire conteste cette objection en démontrant qu’un revenu minimum garanti ne pose pas de danger fondamental à la balance de la réciprocité. Dans le premier chapitre, la façon dont un revenu minimum garanti est financé est abordée. Il y est montré que les coûts d’un tel programme peuvent être couverts avec une taxe sur les ressources appartenant à la collectivité, sans toucher aux avoirs des travailleurs. Le second chapitre porte sur une comparaison entre le revenu minimum garanti et un revenu basé sur la participation. Elle permet de mettre en lumière les nombreux désavantages de cette deuxième option, sa mise en place risquant d’entraîner d’importants coûts financiers et humains. Le troisième chapitre s’attaque à l’objection de l’exploitation telle que formulée par Gijs van Donselaar. Les preuves qu’il fournit sont toutefois jugées insuffisantes et la thèse selon laquelle le versement d’un revenu minimum garanti encourage le parasitisme est réfutée. En ce qui concerne la perception qu’ont les travailleurs du revenu minimum garanti, il est argué qu’ils peuvent être convaincus du bien-fondé de ce programme en faisant appel à certaines valeurs centrales aux démocraties. Le dernier chapitre poursuit cette réflexion en montrant qu’un revenu minimum garanti peut être financé sans recourir à de nouvelles taxes, ce qui est expliqué en faisant appel à la théorie monétaire moderne. / The exploitation objection is commonly raised whenever the implementation of a universal basic income is mentionned. It stipulates that the payment of a minimum income without any form of obligation in return is fundamentally unfair to workers. This thesis challenges this objection and aims to show that a universal basic income does not pose any fundamental threat to the balance of reciprocity. In the first chapter, the way in which a universal basic income can be paid for is discussed. I show that such a program can be entirely funded using taxes on resources equally owned by all members of society, leaving workers’ earnings unspoiled. The second chapter focuses on a comparison between a universal basic income and a participation income. This discussion highlights the many disadvantages of the latter, the implementation of which could lead to significant financial and human costs. The third chapter tackles the exploitation objection directly, as formulated by Gijs van Donselaar. He provides insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the payment of a universal basic income encourages free-riding and his argument is therefore rejected. This leads to a closer inspection of the workers' perception of a universal basic income, which concludes that they can be convinced of the legitimacy of such program by appealing to intrinsically democratic values. The last chapter pursues this reflection by showing that a universal basic income can be implemented without resorting to new taxes, which is supported by modern monetary theory.