Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns

Author:Ingrid Robeyns
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Astra Publishing House

* * *

There is an important philosophical objection to limitarianism that some readers may have thought about by now: that it would unfairly restrict our freedoms and opportunities. Modern societies grant each person a set of basic freedoms that should not be violated. Central to this is the idea that we should all have the opportunity to pursue our own conception of a good life, which can include the life of an entrepreneur or of a thriving career person. Once those opportunities are guaranteed, it is up to the individual to take responsibility and seize them.

The principle of equal opportunity is fundamental to most liberal democracies, and indeed to most modern societies. The worry is that the limitarian ideal would violate it.

Take a person who chooses to forgo leisure in order to work more. If that extra work then generates surplus money that they can use to obtain luxury items, they should have the opportunity to do so. As such, limitarianism undermines equality of opportunity, and should therefore be rejected, since no matter what your political views are, everyone defends the fundamental principle of equal opportunity—or so the objection goes.

But this is wrong.

Limitarianism restricts the financial reward associated with particular opportunities, not the opportunities themselves. In a limitarian society, you would still have the opportunity to be CEO of a major international company, but you could no longer earn millions on a yearly basis.

If you took a very broad understanding of the word “opportunity,” you could counter-argue that the opportunity to achieve a particular status (namely, being a CEO with a vast salary) would no longer be available to very rich individuals. You might moreover add that it’s not merely the opportunity to enjoy additional earnings that is being ruled out, but also what those earnings could be used to obtain (activities and goods that are associated with a luxurious lifestyle and which reflect your high status).

This is correct. In a limitarian world, those at the top would see their financial opportunities curtailed. But this is the price we pay for the massive opening-up of opportunities for all other groups, and for making our societies more just. Limiting the opportunity of a small handful of individuals to become excessively rich would enhance the opportunities available to most other people in the world. In fact, all other individuals would benefit from the huge financial investments that the increased tax revenue would make possible. The global poor would benefit, because if profit-maximization ceases to be worthwhile (why make those dizzying sums if you can’t keep them?), the wages of the workers in factories making fast fashion or technological gadgets could be raised to the level of a living wage (a wage that allows workers to lead a decent life). The disadvantaged in affluent societies would benefit from social policies such as more accessible mental-health services or housing for the homeless. Those living in areas where the harms of global warming will be greatest, and who would otherwise see their opportunities quickly diminish

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.