In an era in which economic inequalities have become deeply rooted in the fibers of our society, a question emerges that is as urgent as it is divisive: is it justifiable, and above all feasible, to establish an upper limit on the wealth that an individual can accumulate? This question, which is rooted in the growing gap between rich and poor, raises heated debates and divides public opinion.
Limitarianism, the "shock" doctrine that wants the end of the super rich
Limitarianism is an idea born from philosophers and scholars of economics and politics, who ask themselves when it is right to put limits on the freedom of specific categories of people for the good of society as a whole.
It all starts from one consideration: in a world where a few rich people have a lot and many have little or nothing, is it really right for the rich to be able to accumulate wealth without limits? Limitarianism says no, and proposes setting a maximum threshold of wealth that a person can possess. The aim is to reduce inequalities and ensure that everyone has enough to live with dignity.
The idea is not new: already in the past thinkers such as Plato and Rousseau had argued that excessive disparities in wealth were harmful to society. But it is in recent years that limitatiarianism has taken shape as an ethical theory, thanks to the work of philosophers such as Ingrid Robeyns.
Limitarianism raises complex questions about freedom, equality and social justice, on which the debate is still open. But one thing is certain: in an increasingly unequal world, reflecting on how to distribute resources more equitably is a challenge that we can no longer put off.
A heated debate on wealth and inequality
The discussion around the limits of wealth has taken on renewed urgency in the face of increasingly damning evidence of global economic inequalities. The figures are alarming and illustrate a world in which a small elite holds a disproportionate share of global wealth, while vast swaths of the world's population struggle to meet the most basic needs.
In this context, some thinkers put forward the proposal to establish concrete limits on individual wealth, arguing that no one should have "too much" in a world where many have "too little". This vision clashes with the traditional conception of capitalism and raises complex questions regarding individual freedom, the right to property and the social function of wealth.
Professor Robeyns proposed an “economic limitationism” which sets a ceiling on personal wealth, but there are also other forms of limitatiarianism, for example the "democratic" one which wants to limit the political influence of the super-rich. Of course, not everyone agrees with these ideas. Some say that we cannot establish an equal wealth threshold for everyone, because people's needs and desires are different. Others fear that limitatiarianism is not enough to make society more equal, because the rich would still find ways to have more power.
Limitarianism: proposals to “cut off” the rich
Among the various "countermeasures" to limit the rich, the thresholds proposed by experts stand out and focus on limiting the accumulation of excessive wealth. The aforementioned Ingrid Robins, professor of ethics at Utrecht University, argues that the state should prevent anyone from accumulating more than 10 million euros. You consider this figure a hard “political” limit. Beyond that, you propose a (much harsher) “ethical limit.” She suggests that in countries with state welfare systems, no one should accumulate more than 1 million euros in savings, promoting a sort of social disapproval towards those who exceed this threshold.
Luke Hildyard, director of the High Pay Center in London, goes further. He proposes not to exceed the threshold that currently defines the richest 1% of taxpayers. In the UK, for 2021-22, it was over £180.000 per year, while in the US it was around $330.000 in 2021.
These proposals aim to redistribute wealth that exceeds these limits, or to prevent such wealth from accumulating in the first place, arguing that this would lead to “no real disadvantages”.
Is it a viable solution?
The implementation of limits on wealth raises practical questions that are not easily resolved. How do we determine the exact point at which the rich become “too rich”? And, once identified, how can we guarantee that these limits are respected, without incurring phenomena of tax evasion or a flight of capital towards more permissive jurisdictions?
These questions highlight the need for a holistic approach, which goes beyond the simple imposition of limits and which addresses the root causes of economic inequalities, promoting fairer and more sustainable redistribution policies.
In any case, the question of limits to wealth forces us to reflect on the type of society in which we wish to live: do we want a world in which the success of a few ultra-rich is built on the destitution of many, or do we aspire to a community in which Is prosperity shared and accessible to all? The search for an answer to this question is not just a theoretical exercise, but an urgent and concrete challenge that requires commitment, innovation and, above all, the will to pursue a common good that reconciles individual aspirations with the needs of the community.
Bibliography:
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books. – Narveson, J. (1988). The Libertarian Idea. Temple University Press. – Sartwell, C. (2008). Against the State: An Introduction to Anarchist Political Theory. SUNY Press. – Rothbard, M. N. (1982). The Ethics of Liberty. Humanities Press.
