ABSTRACT
This chapter explains Van Donselaar's argument in which he concludes that, although people may believe that other principles override this concern, "a principled choice for or against parasitism cannot be avoided". It argues that Van Donselaar's conclusion, that a basic income is exploitive, relies on holding recipients responsible for the level of scarcity in the world. The chapter demonstrates that the Level of Scarcity is not Van Donselaar's definition of exploitation, but his point of comparison that allows him to draw different conclusions on the exploitive nature of basic income in the Crazy–Lazy example. Van Donselaar's point of comparison makes mutually beneficial trades exploitive unless the benefits are so great to make up for the scarcity that each individual's existence creates. The chapter also argues that Van Donselaar's conclusions come from treating work rents inconsistently with other rents. It discusses that a principled choice for or against parasitism cannot be made, because parasitism cannot be clearly identified or eliminated.
