## Metadata - Author: [[Ingrid Robeyns]] - Full Title: Limitarianism - Category: #books ## Highlights - It’s quite simple: because they are so immensely wealthy, rich and super-rich individuals can—and do—cause disproportionate damage to the climate in all areas of their lives, thereby harming those who are too vulnerable to defend themselves. In this way, the rich dramatically violate a principle that all moral philosophical traditions would agree on: the “polluter pays” principle. This principle doesn’t just apply to the polluting consumers, however; it also applies—even more so—to investors and producers. ([Location 2108](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=2108)) - We all need to act to protect the living planet—but why should middle-class families put their meager savings into buying a heat pump or solar panels, or trade in their gasoline-fueled car for an expensive electric one, or sign up for a car pool, if they see the super-rich living in mansions, flying private jets, or collecting money from investments in polluting industries? If the most affluent individuals don’t act first, they are violating the “ability-to-pay” principle, which is one of the core ethical principles used in taxation design, but also more recently in thinking about how the burdens of climate action should be distributed. ([Location 2310](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=2310)) - This principle states that when there is a problem that a group of people need to solve, those with the greatest capacity should shoulder the heaviest burdens, and take most responsibility. The 90 percent will resent having to make sacrifices if the 10 percent keep emitting so intensively; they will resent even more that the 1 percent are emitting many times what the 90 percent emit. We are in a planetary crisis, and this will require action from everyone. We need leadership from those who have power. We need the richest to set an example. Otherwise it’s going to be difficult to ask the non-rich to make sacrifices. ([Location 2315](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=2315)) - Social mobility is dead in some countries, and crumbling in many others. But still we cling to the myth of meritocracy. Ironically, this belief prevents us from taking the action that would make social mobility a reality: the massive redistribution of wealth. This simply cannot happen until we recognize that no one could ever “deserve” the extreme riches enjoyed by today’s economic elite. ([Location 2758](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=2758)) - Solving a collective-action problem requires coordination, typically from the government. These are issues that require structural solutions, rather than individual acts. These are also problems that, once they are solved, benefit everyone. ([Location 3040](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3040)) - In their book Against Inequality, the Canadian professor Tom Malleson considers the findings of empirical studies that look into whether the rich and super-rich work less if they are taxed more, and concludes that we have no evidence that this happens. At the very top, people are motivated much more by power and prestige, and thus won’t reduce their professional involvement if they earn less after paying taxes. ([Location 3102](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3102)) - Besides, even if there were zero financial reward for putting in additional effort, it does not follow that you would get zero overall reward for putting in that effort. A lot of people put in a lot of effort all the time for zero financial reward—think of all the people who do voluntary work, or activists who fight for the common good when the government or companies have dropped the ball (as in climate action, or the generous farmer in Alabama!). Or take the work of a teacher. Teachers regularly go the extra mile for students who need more support, without receiving extra pay. Teachers across the globe work regular overtime. When we ask them why they do it, it’s rare to hear the term “reward” or “money” in their answer. They do it out of an intrinsic motivation to do their work well, following professional moral codes. They take their profession as a vocation and do what it takes to do it well—within reason, of course. Yet for those who like to use the terminology of reward, one might say what the teachers are rewarded with is the pleasure and satisfaction of seeing kids and teenagers grow and develop. They are rewarded in human flourishing. ([Location 3112](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3112)) - Of course, if I were to meet Chuck Feeney, I would not start complaining about his taxes. This is not about the individual. This is about social structures, and about politics. Our analysis is meant to contribute to a forward-looking agenda. Yes, we can talk about how public–private partnerships can improve the world. We can talk about how much good philanthropy can do. But first we need to talk about the basic structures of our societies, about the social contract; about the basic agreements made in our parliaments, and our international economic treaties. We need to decide whether we should allow so much tax avoidance and evasion, and so much lobbying for the legislation that facilitates it. We need to think about whether we should press each other to live according to the spirit of the law rather than the most self-serving legal interpretation of it. ([Location 3183](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3183)) - In his 2016 film I, Daniel Blake, Ken Loach, the unrivaled socially critical British film director, presents a portrait of how these layers of control crush people—often the most vulnerable ones. A philanthropist should distribute free copies of I, Daniel Blake among public servants—perhaps that would inspire them to pose the questions they need to ask their superiors. ([Location 3264](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3264)) - Limitarianism holds that any affluent person should allocate wealth that they do not need for their own quality of life in a way that meets unmet needs, addresses collective-action problems, and tackles the structural injustices in a society. ([Location 3452](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3452)) - I doubt that any economy operating today is a form of pure capitalism. Companies and citizens alike are supported by subsidies, benefits, regulations, and so forth. The question we should be asking is not whether we should have capitalism or socialism. It is, rather, which specific mix of markets, regulation, distribution, government ownership, private ownership, and collective ownership should we have? ([Location 3924](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3924)) - We don’t just need institutional design and fiscal choices; we also need to develop a set of public values that are culturally embedded, where material gain is not the leading incentive—where people may also choose to work hard because of personal commitment, challenges they have set themselves, or for intrinsic pleasure, esteem, and honor. That is perhaps the biggest task that we need to undertake: we must rebalance our view of society, and our view of ourselves as human beings. If we can make that shift in perspective, limitarianism becomes very natural. ([Location 3938](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3938)) - It is a cliché, but a true one nonetheless: we need each other—in order to survive, and in order to thrive. Moreover, we are all vulnerable, in the best case only for periods at the beginning and at the end of our lives and when we are sick or injured, but some of us are less lucky and need support throughout our time on Earth. It is fodder for psychologists why so many people have such a great urge to believe that they are strong, capable of life on their own. We are not. None of us can survive very long without other human beings. Accepting this fundamental vulnerability would have drastic consequences for how we organize society. Care and community-building would become central to our collective decision-making. That would mean making reasoned, balanced decisions about when it is appropriate to prioritize our own commitments, and when we must prioritize caring for others. ([Location 3943](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=3943)) - Neoliberalism propagates the view that we should implement “technocratic” solutions to problems, rather than solutions that emerge from democratic deliberation. For every problem there is a technocratic solution that it considers beyond democratic debate. Neoliberalism’s view on human nature has made us see ourselves as investors in our “human capital,” or as consumers, or as workers offering our services on the labor market—but not as activists, organizers, debaters, engaged as neighbors or members of political book clubs, and so on. So we need to find a different way of looking at ourselves, at other people, other sentient beings, the Earth, and all the practices we engage in. This requires us to be more engaged as participants in communal practices, as those who shape democratic processes, as political animals. We need to reclaim politics, and we need to reclaim democracy. ([Location 4003](https://readwise.io/to_kindle?action=open&asin=B0C4J8HPPG&location=4003))