Perhaps there can be too much freedom

Bruce Ackerman and Anne Alstott have proposed a policy reform, called stakeholder grants (stakes), they argue will increase the amount of real freedom held by United States residents. Philippe Van Parijs has also proposed a policy reform, called the basic income, that he's justified by reference to its ability to increase real freedom. Ackerman and Alstott, although very sympathetic to the basic income, nevertheless prefer stakes to a basic income because they believe stakes, if enacted, would promote real freedom to a greater extent than would a basic income. This paper raises questions about this point of view. I argue that upon consideration of some pretty common decision making patterns it may be reasonable to conclude that putting appropriate constraints on freedom may be more real freedom promoting than otherwise and that such a conclusion may ground a preference for the basic income over stakes.