Complete unconditional hospitality is impossible, but this was never our point. Regardless of feasibility, the act of simply reaching for hospitality is good in and of itself. Only a basic income can grapple with the aporia intrinsic to freedom and economics.

A more direct ground for the scope of basic income beneficiaries can be found in Levinas’ concept of hospitality39 The hospitality is expanded further and presented by Jacque Derrida. The hospitality is unconditional hospitality. Unconditional hospitality differs from Kantian universal hospitality, that is, conditional hospitality which deprives the other of the right of residence. It can be pointed out that it is not realistic to insist on unconditional hospitality in the situation where even conditional hospitality is difficult. Derrida also mentions the impossibility while requesting for unconditional hospitality:

A nation-state, no matter what its identity is, even if it were a democracy, or whether the majority there is right or left, will never be able to open itself to unconditional hospitality or to the right of unreserved protection. It would never be “realistic” to expect or require such a thing from a nation-state.40

As Derrida admits, unconditional hospitality is unrealistic. Nevertheless, Derrida insists on the necessity of unconditional hospitality. Derrida makes a distinction between the law of hospitality and the laws of hospitality. Whereas the law of hospitality is unconditional, the laws of hospitality are conditional. The reason why the law of unconditional hospitality is necessary is that, without the law of unconditional hospitality, the laws of conditional hospitality can determine neither the directivity of hospitality, nor even the concrete regulations. If this concept of unconditional hospitality is linked to the beneficiaries of basic income, the ethics of the other requires that the scope of beneficiaries should be expanded rather than reduced, and that the speed and width of expansion should be increased based on the spirit of hospitality to the other.41

The ethics of the other, which demands unlimited responsibilities for the other, requires a serious discussion on the beneficiary’s freedom as well as the scope of beneficiaries of basic income. The reason why individuals’ freedom is important in the discussion of basic income is the paradoxical relationship between freedom and economy. Referring to the UNESCO UN Human Rights Report, Levinas says as follows: “Personal freedom is inconceivable without economic liberation, while the organization of economic freedom isn’t possible without an enslavement of the moral person – temporary but for an indeterminate duration.”42 As Levinas points out, economic support is inevitable to secure individual freedom, but at the same time, it is difficult to overcome human enslavement to materials and the dangers that economy determines the content of freedom. Van Parijs, for example, argues that in order to promote economic solidarity for the purpose of promoting basic income, the local languages must be replaced by the mainstream language.43 Regarding language as a simple means of communication, he defines language as follows: “the preservation of a language is not a fetish to be imposed on its native speakers on the ground that loyalty to their ancestors requires it, or that it would enable them to lead a more authentic life, or that linguistic diversity is an invaluable part of the human heritage that should not be squandered.”44 His expression indicating that he understands the diversity of language as a fetish is an example of human freedom in bondage to economy. Unlike his understanding, the diversity of language is a fundamental dimension of human freedom rather than a secondary one. Ignoring this fundamental dimension for the sake of economy could lead to a crisis of freedom per se. Although it is important to provide economic support, human freedom should be guaranteed more broadly, and discussions on basic income should deepen to promote and expand that freedom.