LIMITARIANISM

A withering critique of the ethical, moral, and fiscal harms of unlimited wealth concentration.

Robeyns, who holds the chair in ethics of institutions at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, proposes to clamp a lid on extreme wealth. She details where to draw the line on how much any individual might possess ($10 million), how to legislate such a wealth cap, and what to do with the billions in new tax earnings that could be employed to vastly better use; she marshals irrefutable evidence to support many of her conclusions. Despite the accusations of anti-capitalist propaganda that conservatives level against this point of view, the author is largely persuasive in locating the many sources of gross inequity and human rights violations linked to obscene wealth. Robeyns describes numerous measures that should be taken by governments in the name of fairness and fiscal justice. Limiting what is often the useless hoarding of inert wealth and trying to achieve a fair outcome for as many people as possible is an exceedingly desirable concept, but it also flies in the face of human nature and the allure of greed. The idea does not seem attainable outside of a perfect society. One suspects that, even within democratic societies, enforcing the limitation (much less elimination) of such financial inequalities would require draconian measures under current circumstances. This is not to say that matters couldn’t be improved to a considerable extent, as Robeyns demonstrates. Still, it’s one thing to theorize in academe, proposing well-thought-out solutions, but quite another to implement them against titanic opposition, which the author freely admits. No absolutist, she’s not against earned wealth, up to a point, but rather unearned or “dirty” money. Yet strategies that work so well in small nations don’t necessarily translate to massive economies.

A caustic but balanced attack offers an equitable economic compromise.