Should being a billionaire be illegal? Or, at least, actively discouraged? That’s the argument at the heart of Ingrid Robeyns’ intriguing case against extreme wealth, Limitarianism. It’s an argument particularly pertinent in a week when Tesla is offering to make Elon Musk a trillionaire if he can reach certain sales targets. For Robeyns, an ethicist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, her arguments against extreme wealth are both moral and utilitarian. On the one hand, she argues that nobody truly "deserves" billions because economic success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetic lottery, family circumstances, educational opportunities, and market timing. On the other hand, she contends that extreme wealth concentration actively harms society by undermining democracy, encouraging unsustainable consumption patterns, and creating inefficient resource allocation. While acknowledging that such reforms may take decades to implement, Robeyns floats the idea of wealth caps around $10 million, arguing this still rewards success while preventing the most flagrant concentrations of economic and political power. Spare change for Elon and his plutocratic bros. So don’t hold your breath for a Musk funded Limitarian political party in the next few centuries.

1. Why Billionaires Don't "Deserve" Their Wealth Robeyns argues that extreme wealth is largely undeserved because success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetics, family background, education access, and market timing. She contends that acknowledging luck's role should make us more humble about wealth accumulation and challenge narratives of self-made billionaires.

2. Extreme Wealth Threatens Democratic Equality She identifies a concerning alliance between extreme wealth holders and anti-democratic forces, arguing that billionaire-level fortunes inevitably translate into disproportionate political influence that undermines the principle of political equality essential to democratic governance.

3. Billionaire Lifestyles Are Environmentally Unsustainable The consumption patterns of the ultra-wealthy - private jets, space tourism, multiple estates - cannot be scaled to the broader population without ecological collapse. This creates a sustainability paradox where a tiny elite's lifestyle choices constrain options for everyone else.

4. Wealth Caps Could Preserve Innovation While Limiting Harm Rather than eliminating all inequality, Robeyns proposes capping individual wealth at roughly $10 million, arguing this still provides substantial rewards for success while preventing the most harmful concentrations of economic and political power.

5. Implementation Requires Generational Cultural Change Robeyns acknowledges her proposals are "regulative ideals" that may take decades to implement, comparing the timeline to how neoliberal ideas took generations to become mainstream policy. She emphasizes changing cultural narratives about extreme wealth as the essential first step.

Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

It's not all bad

Unexplainable

What Future Perfect covers

The AI-powered Podcast Player