Limitarianism (ethical)

Ethical Limitarianism is an ethical theory which (1) tries to be a partial account of distributive justice, (2) which belongs within the realms of politics rather than morality, (3) which is conceived and developed at the level of non-ideal theory, (4) which relies on an instrumental justification.[1]

Democratic Limitarianism is a political theory which posits that governments have priority duties to their citizenry to protect it from risk and to ensure independence from fear. Based on such ideas, this political philosophy urges that governments should prioritize protecting the citizens against fear of death or injury from:

• Domestic threats
• Foreign threats
• Social insecurity
• Environmental hazard

There exists a political movement which advocates for such ideas through principles of prioritization.[2]

Economic Limitarianism is a school of thought in Economics which asserts that social improvement can be attained by the placement of a certain limit on personal wealth. Different modalities have been proposed for the regulation of such a limit. Economic Limitarianism differs from Socialism in that it does not negate the idea of private property, or completely bars the accumulation of wealth. It rather sets to determine and enforce a limit on the accumulation thereof, as means of creating a positive change in the economic system of a nation. [3]

Academic theorist Ingrid Robeyns has been promoting a formal of Economic Limitarianism which proposes a system of social justice via wealth distribution,[4] which bears some similarities to Social Democracies and Socialism.[5] Robeyn's idea of Economic Limitarianism states that it is morally impermissible to be (excessively) rich (i.e., have more economic resources than a certain level). [6] The Ethical-Economic Limitarianism of Robeyns would contrast with this view of Democratic Limitarianism. In 2016, the European Research Council awarded Robeyns a grant of 2 million Euros for conducting a 5-year research study on Limitarianism. [7]

Author Jonathan Bluestein has proposed a type of Economic Limitarianism called 'Prosperism'.[8] Differing from Robeyns' approach, the system of Prosperism calls for distribution of wealth based on more libertarian and capitalistic guidelines. While Robeyns' philosophy argues that both income and wealth should be limited and regulated,[9] and views excess enrichment as 'immoral', Bluestein's approach demands only that wealth be limited, without a restriction of income, and does not condone enrichment altogether.

Although the term 'Economic Limitarianism' is a relatively new one, the origins of the concept could be argued to have already been extant in the Old Testament, and possibly before that. The Old Testament presents a form of 'taxation' known as a 'Tithe', which is equal to 10% of the crop of a farmer. A First Tithe (10%) was to be paid to the priests of the tribe of Levi,[10] and the Second Tithe (another 10%) was in some years to be given to the poor.[11] Thus, the Tithe can be thought of as an intentional limit placed on the accumulation of wealth. The First Tithe is akin to Robeyns' Limitarianism, which supports a deliverance of excess wealth to the Bureaucracy, while the Second Tithe is more reminiscent of Bluestein's Prosperism, which proposes that those who amass wealth ought to share, but should have a choice with respect to whom to share it with. Both types of Tithe differ from modern-day Taxation in that they serve purposes other than enriching a State so that it could serve its citizenry.

Socialism and communism can be thought of as extreme forms of Economic Limitarianism. They call for a revolutionary nationalization of individual wealth and property, as well as the complete or very expansive abolition of private property, as means of creating greater social equity. Limitarianism differs from them in that it still tolerates a certain level of inequality.

Sufficientarianism is a school of thought in social justice, economics and philosophy, which strives to determine what are the supposed basic needs that should be allotted to human beings in order to guarantee social equity, or at least equality of opportunity.[15][16] Such questions which are asked by Sufficientarianism, have historically been an integral part of democractic theory and socialist theory, as in both exist the belief that the State has a duty to provide the citizenry with certain 'needs' and 'rights'. Both Sufficientarianism and Limitarianism revolve around the topics of social equity and equality of opportunity. However, while Sufficientarianism deals with questions regarding what people should have or need to be granted, Limitarianism examines how to place limits of excess on accumulation of wealth.