Political philosopher Ingrid Robeyns argues for a maximum limit on personal wealth. She discusses wealth inequality, its threat to democratic societies, and the historical perspective. The link between wealth inequality and political stability is explored, along with the challenges of political change. The hosts discuss selling the concept of limitarianism in America and reconceiving the market and private property for a more equitable system.
Read more
AI Summary
Highlights
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Limitarianism proposes an upper limit on personal wealth, based on the harm caused by excessive wealth concentration.
Wealth inequality undermines democracy and societal stability, necessitating limits on wealth accumulation and stronger anti-corruption measures.
Deep dives
Limitarianism: Imposing upper limits on personal wealth accumulation
Limitarianism is a view that there should be an upper limit on personal wealth accumulation, just as there is a poverty line. This is based on the moral argument that excessive wealth concentration leads to harm, such as ecological degradation and the undermining of democracy. Ingrid Robens proposes a political limit of 10 million euros in countries like the Netherlands, with a healthcare system and public pension support. Additionally, a personal voluntary limit of 1 million euros is suggested based on research indicating that beyond this point, increased wealth does not significantly enhance quality of life.
The inequality problem: Concentration of wealth in a few hands
In the US, just 10% of the population holds 70% of personal wealth, creating a highly unequal distribution. This pattern is seen globally, albeit to varying degrees. While inequality has always existed, it was previously tolerated because the rich would step up in times of crisis. However, recent research suggests that the super-rich are no longer fulfilling this role. Since the 1970s, inequality has been increasing, undermining societal stability. This wealth concentration poses a threat to democracy and sustainability.
The case against extreme wealth: Moral and political implications
Limitarianism is presented as both an ethical and political proposition. Ethically, it challenges the notion that individuals deserve unlimited wealth, emphasizing the role of luck in personal success. Politically, wealth concentration leads to the undermining of democratic processes, as the rich can use their financial power to sway politics in their favor. Imposing limits on wealth accumulation, along with anti-corruption laws, can help address the problem of political inequality. The focus should be on building walls between the economic and political spheres to prevent the rich from wielding disproportionate political influence.
Moving towards a more equitable society: Challenges and possibilities
The implementation of limitarianism faces challenges and resistance, particularly in countries with a strong libertarian ethos. However, there is growing recognition of the need to address wealth inequality and its societal consequences. The Scandinavian social democratic model is often cited as an example of a more equitable system. To sell the idea of limitarianism, a shift in societal mindset is necessary, encouraging a view of citizens as active participants and challenging the dominant neoliberal ideology. The urgency of addressing not only poverty but also climate change may provide impetus for change.
Political philosopher Ingrid Robeyns believes that there should be a maximum amount of money and resources that one person can have. She tells Sean how much is too much and why limiting personal wealth benefits everyone, including the super rich.
Host: Sean Illing (@seanilling), host, The Gray Area