One of the idealistic notions I've always supported is the idea of a basic income as an alternative to our current mess of poverty reduction schemes. An Aussie blogger I read provides some arguments for the basic income here. I will further note that the present system essentially gives coercive power to employers of low income workers; their continued employment is needed for their survival. Sure, they have in principle the option of changing jobs, but that's often much harder for the very poor than for others. Coercion comes in degrees. Almost any kind can in principle be avoided, and the threat to survival employers have over low income workers in many cases easily reaches a level that is comparable to other obvious cases of coercion.
People like to have coercive power over others, which tends to lead them to employ coercive power even when it is not the optimal method of pursuing their other goals. Normalizing the use of coercive power has a corrupting effect, especially given the appeal of such power. Taking away the coercive power of employers would force them to try harder to make the jobs they offer desirable to the workers. Showing a greater interest in the well-being of workers may well make them more productive; coercion produces resentment, and resentful workers have plenty of ways to undermine a company. Thus, a basic income may have further economic benefits apart from those already mentioned by Chappell, as well as having profound moral benefits.