Utopia for Realists: And How We Can Get There

To support the case for Universal Basic Income, Bregman cites relatively few studies, and these are limited by both geography and time. Are they sufficient to establish his conclusion that such a policy would unquestionably benefit society? Explain your reasoning, citing the text and other sources relevant to your argument.

If there were a basic income plan, who would qualify? Should it be everyone or limited to those at certain income levels? Should there be differences for veterans, families with children, or other groups? Might historically marginalized groups receive greater sums as part of a reparations plan? Discuss your own proposal for this policy.

What do you think of Bregman’s proposal for a 15-hour work week? Should it vary based on profession, and if so, would this create equity issues? Who can afford the luxury of less time at work, and who needs to put in more hours for the greater good?

One criticism of Bregman is that he concentrates too much on economic benefits, without proper regard for questions of belonging and identity. Do you agree with this criticism, or do you consider his case for economic benefits sufficient to ameliorate cultural tensions? Explain your reasoning.

Describe the position Bregman ultimately reaches regarding the Luddites. Were they sympathetic victims of historical revisionism, or did they take a reasonable point about technology too far? Cite the text in your response, explaining your reasoning.

Bregman describes open borders as an obviously superior ideal to the problem of immigration, yet in countries with high levels of immigration, no major politician has yet been willing to advocate anything close to an open-borders policy. Why does resistance endure, if, as Bregman points out, the real benefits vastly outweigh the mostly imaginary costs?

Bregman frequently compares his proposals to the abolition of slavery and women’s suffrage, because they are ideas that were once condemned but are now accepted universally. Do you find this comparison plausible? Or do you think he is piggybacking off these revered movements in order to be taken more seriously? Explain your reasoning.

Toward the end of the book, Bregman admits that he sometimes tends to preemptively dismiss evidence contrary to his beliefs. Do you find any evidence of this tendency within the book? If so, in which passage(s)? Explain.