I'm wondering if people understand that almost all the pleasures/comforts in modern life were created by people who wouldn't exist in this system.
This system doesn't eliminate people. It eliminates the pointless and harmful hoarding of wealth.
Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
11–20 of 660 posts
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#12> The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you. It won't cure envy. Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Absolute stand…
It doesn't have to. The point isn't a perfect society, the point is to prevent resource hoarding and the accumulation of totalitarian power. When we allow wealth to accumulate we are also allowing power to accumulate.
When we allow the state to dictate wealth ceilings, we hand it absolute power.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#13We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other people should do.
Is political ambition measured in pages published?
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#14We should place a hard cap on political ambitions like these. These utopians will be the end of us with their ridiculous schemes involving always what other people should do.
But the billionaire utopians and their ridiculous schemes, those are totally cool and will save humanity.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#15You'll always have the poor (by system, choice, situation, intention) among you.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#16> The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you. It won't cure envy. Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Absolute stand…
I wouldn't be surprised if society one day sees uber wealth similar to how we see hereditary monarchies. The idea that the uber wealthy "earned" their position has already begun to wither.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#17> The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you. It won't cure envy. Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living. Absolute stand…
It doesn't have to. The point isn't a perfect society, the point is to prevent resource hoarding and the accumulation of totalitarian power. When we allow wealth to accumulate we are also allowing power to accumulate.
It's just preventing the accumulation of a specific kind of power.
Relatively speaking this would increase the power of military generals, presidents, and criminals, for a start. Is that a good thing? maybe, but restricting power from a group needs to be assessed in terms of holistic power balance not naive platitudes like 'No one should be a millionaire/billionaire'.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#18I'm wondering if people understand that almost all the pleasures/comforts in modern life were created by people who wouldn't exist in this system.
This system doesn't eliminate people. It eliminates the pointless and harmful hoarding of wealth.
Your usage of the word "hoarding" implies a Scrooge McDuck view of wealth where its just stashed away in some vault - never put to use. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#19Nobody should even be a millionaire it says. A small house in California is a million dollars ffs.
The irony of charging 20 pounds for this is palpable.
Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth
#20Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million. Because that's the point at which you have enough wealth to live a comfortably middle class lifestyle for the rest of your life, still pass down a substantial chunk to your children, and never have to earn another cent. I've argued we should combine this with a move towards a worker o…
> Adding this to my reading list. I've thought for years that we should place at hard cap on wealth somewhere around $10 or $15 million.
Wouldn’t a tax system that steeply ramps up, includes property and tends to it’s loopholes (family trusts, property etc) achieve most of this?