Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

hive.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 660 posts

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#21

Post by dbingham »

FredPret wrote: post #12
dbingham wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The state is democratic, not absolute. When the state implements policies like this it is acting as a democratic expression of the community's will. We as a community are saying "We're not going to allow individuals within our community to accumulate undo influence over it."

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#22

Post by tehjoker »

FredPret wrote: post #9

We 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.

I don't understand why we celebrate the (false) utopian ambitions of the rich who very much make decisions for other people - coercively too bc we need to eat (and they also use lawsuits, media, govt, and assassinations if you cross them).

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#23

Post by megaman821 »

quirkot wrote: post #8

Hell yeah. You accumulate $100m (or whatever the limit is) and we throw a parade for you. You get an award and your name on a plaque. You won capitalism! and you're not allowed to make another cent

To what end? Innovative companies are literally creating money that did not exist before. Do you think there is a fixed pie of money?

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#24

Post by avgcorrection »

golemotron wrote: post #2

> 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…

> Nearly everyone alive today is a "millionaire" compared to people living a few generations ago in terms of standard of living.

Ah so both literal millionaires and common people should be happy with a median wealth life. I agree.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#26

Post by jdiff »

eej71 wrote: post #18
jdiff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My mental image is one of unelected, untouchable oligarchs taking actions that they're accountable to nobody for. That's far worse than Scrooge McDuck.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#28

Post by ch4s3 »

dbingham wrote: post #6

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. 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…

So what is your proposal if you own a company, or if some minerals are discovered on your heretofore low value land?

It's not really all that uncommon for a company with a sole owner or a partnership to be worth in excess of $15 Million.

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#29

Post by macintux »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #19

Nobody 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.

If no one was a millionaire, a small house in California wouldn't cost that much.

(I'm not defending the thesis, but it needs a stronger argument against than that.)

Re: Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

#30

Post by fngjdflmdflg »

dbingham wrote: post #10
drkevorkian wrote: post #5

I agree with the premise that "nobody deserves to be a millionaire" (although maybe with inflation we should say deca-millionaire), but a hard cap seems like a crude tool with many potential downsides. A UBI would be a better tool for raising living standards, and a progressive wealth tax would be a better guard against hereditary fortunes, without removing the incentives for high earners to continue working.

You don't need incentives for high earners to continue working. 1) We can afford for them to stop working. Really, it's okay. People can just chill. We're more than efficient enough for it. 2) People don't need monetary incentives to work. Most of us get bored just chilling. We want to feel useful. We need community. We need something to engage our brains. The vast majority of people, left to their own devices, will…

Do you really think people will go to medical school for 4 years because they are "bored of chilling?"
Post reply on HN