Abstract
In order to be just, a society should ensure real freedom for all and this objectivehas to be realized by durably conferring the highest possible unconditional basic income on all its members. Such is the main thesis defended by Philippe Van Parijs in his recent work. In this article we present his most important arguments and we criticize (some of) them. We argue that the exclusion of the idea of participatory justice from the concept of real freedom cannot be justified, that his criterion for attributing additional allowances to handicapped persons is too severe and that the importance of a substantial offer of public goods of high quality is underestimated. Moreover, if one agrees to value work intrinsically, then a small basic income can already suffice to avoid thethreat of an unemployment trap for people with few opportunities. Ultimately it is difficult to conceive how one could bridge the gap between a pragmatic legitimation of basic income as a means for activitating the unemployed and its philosophical legitimation in terms of real freedom