I think Ingrid Robeyns is one of the clearest thinkers in contemporary political philosophy. Limitarianism is not a liberal philosophy. Also, the claim the property is unlimited is unsubstantiated. The material world has physical limits so no property can be unlimited, including intellectual property, because all property has a material correspondent.
The analogy with the referee does not work because games have rules based on consensus that seek to rewards certain incentives. If the consensus was that the points difference between losers and winners cannot exceed a threshold, then that will constitute the rules of the game. There is no intrinsic rule that rewards should be unlimited, but there can be an intrinsic argument for limitarianism, based on the adverse consequences it creates in society.
Certainly, it is likely that a socialist society would be guided by limitarianism. I would qualify this by adding that democratizing the distribution of power, property, and capital would be the backbone on which limitarianism should be placed. I would not support socialism that preserves unelected hierarchies, such as those in corporations where the board of directors, executives, and managers are not selected democratically either through elections or qualified lottery.
I am for limitarianism. I support an intrinsic version of limitarianism. Robeyns does not support an intrinsic version. I think there should be limits to accumulation of wealth built-in the rules of society because the natural world is also limited. I also support a version socialism that is ecological (eco-socialism) and fully democratic (with no unelected hierarchies).
Threre is no "natural" limit to wealth. That limit should be determined democratically by society. I advocate for a maximum limit of $5 million becase that is roughly the threshold for belonging to the top 1%. I also advocate for a maximum income ratio of 1:5 (highest = 5 x lowest).
I think Ingrid Robeyns is one of the clearest thinkers in contemporary political philosophy. Limitarianism is not a liberal philosophy. Also, the claim the property is unlimited is unsubstantiated. The material world has physical limits so no property can be unlimited, including intellectual property, because all property has a material correspondent.
The analogy with the referee does not work because games have rules based on consensus that seek to rewards certain incentives. If the consensus was that the points difference between losers and winners cannot exceed a threshold, then that will constitute the rules of the game. There is no intrinsic rule that rewards should be unlimited, but there can be an intrinsic argument for limitarianism, based on the adverse consequences it creates in society.
Certainly, it is likely that a socialist society would be guided by limitarianism. I would qualify this by adding that democratizing the distribution of power, property, and capital would be the backbone on which limitarianism should be placed. I would not support socialism that preserves unelected hierarchies, such as those in corporations where the board of directors, executives, and managers are not selected democratically either through elections or qualified lottery.
I am for limitarianism. I support an intrinsic version of limitarianism. Robeyns does not support an intrinsic version. I think there should be limits to accumulation of wealth built-in the rules of society because the natural world is also limited. I also support a version socialism that is ecological (eco-socialism) and fully democratic (with no unelected hierarchies).
Threre is no "natural" limit to wealth. That limit should be determined democratically by society. I advocate for a maximum limit of $5 million becase that is roughly the threshold for belonging to the top 1%. I also advocate for a maximum income ratio of 1:5 (highest = 5 x lowest).