Liberalism is based on the constitutional right to property. Property is unlimited. However much property you can accumulate you are entitled to keep. In fact, you are personally responsible for your own property accumulation. Nobody is obligated to give you or provide you with any property.
Capitalism by definition is based on competition and accumulation. It works just like any sporting event or game of monopoly. Imagine if some authoritarian referee put limits on the points any team could accumulate, or the referee redistributed points from winners to losers. Imagine if a referee imposed limits to property in a game of monopoly. That would effectively prevent anyone from winning the game. That would defeat the whole point of playing the game. The same is true with a sporting event. Limits and redistribution defeats the whole point of playing the game. Why would anyone play?
Limits on wealth and capital are more compatible with a society based on cooperation (socialism). For example, once the limit has been reached a small business owner can "go public" and his business will become publicly owned and profits accrue to the state. He can, of course, have a life long membership on the board of his company.
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.
Ok, so you are against limitarianism because there are already "built-in limits" to property? Obviously, if inequality is already limited, then limitarianism is redundant. Are you also against socialism?
BTW what is the actual "natural" limit one person can own? A trillion, quadrillion? Please specify. Thanx.
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).
Ok, that doesnt sounds confusing to me but if it works for you great. For example if I have 100% of the points and you have 0, then the inequality is unlimited. I guess you are using some other definition.
Also, nobody would play a game in which the rules stipulated that nobody could win the game or that the outcome must be equal. In fact, there is NO game in reality that even resembles "points difference between losers and winners cannot exceed a threshold." There is a reason they don't exist. How would that work with a lottery?
You are confusing the rules of the game with the outcomes of the game. The rules of the game are about procedural fairness. It makes no sense to make rules that determine the outcome of the game. If you knew what the outcome of the game was going to be, again, why would anyone play it?
The bottom line is that limitarianism and redistribution are not compatible with the logic of competition.
Ingrid Robeyns is deeply confused.
Liberalism is based on the constitutional right to property. Property is unlimited. However much property you can accumulate you are entitled to keep. In fact, you are personally responsible for your own property accumulation. Nobody is obligated to give you or provide you with any property.
Capitalism by definition is based on competition and accumulation. It works just like any sporting event or game of monopoly. Imagine if some authoritarian referee put limits on the points any team could accumulate, or the referee redistributed points from winners to losers. Imagine if a referee imposed limits to property in a game of monopoly. That would effectively prevent anyone from winning the game. That would defeat the whole point of playing the game. The same is true with a sporting event. Limits and redistribution defeats the whole point of playing the game. Why would anyone play?
Limits on wealth and capital are more compatible with a society based on cooperation (socialism). For example, once the limit has been reached a small business owner can "go public" and his business will become publicly owned and profits accrue to the state. He can, of course, have a life long membership on the board of his company.
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.
Ok, so you are against limitarianism because there are already "built-in limits" to property? Obviously, if inequality is already limited, then limitarianism is redundant. Are you also against socialism?
BTW what is the actual "natural" limit one person can own? A trillion, quadrillion? Please specify. Thanx.
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).
Ok, that doesnt sounds confusing to me but if it works for you great. For example if I have 100% of the points and you have 0, then the inequality is unlimited. I guess you are using some other definition.
Also, nobody would play a game in which the rules stipulated that nobody could win the game or that the outcome must be equal. In fact, there is NO game in reality that even resembles "points difference between losers and winners cannot exceed a threshold." There is a reason they don't exist. How would that work with a lottery?
You are confusing the rules of the game with the outcomes of the game. The rules of the game are about procedural fairness. It makes no sense to make rules that determine the outcome of the game. If you knew what the outcome of the game was going to be, again, why would anyone play it?
The bottom line is that limitarianism and redistribution are not compatible with the logic of competition.