Why Limitarianism?*

This article discusses ‘limitarianism’, which in its most general formulation is the idea that in the world as it is, no one should have more than a certain upper limit of valuable goods, in particular, income and wealth. What, if anything, does ‘limitarianism’ add to normative political philosophy? In Section I, I describe the context in which limitarianism has been introduced. Section II will provide a more detailed statement about limitarianism, including some more recent contributions to and developments in the literature. In the next two sections, I discuss egalitarianism (Section III) and sufficientarianism (Section IV) and ask whether they can do what I envision to be the task of limitarianism. Section V argues that within theories of distributive justice, limitarianism is best seen as part of a pluralist account. This is illustrated by sketching the proposal of a pluralist account combining sufficientarianism, opportunity egalitarianism, and limitarianism. Section VI concludes by pulling everything together, and will give an answer to the question of what limitarianism contributes to normative political philosophy.11 For reasons of space and focus, I do not discuss in this article other worries related to limitarianism. For example, limitarianism is subject to criticisms that are levied against all threshold views; see Timmer 2021a. I will also not engage with Huseby’s (2022) critique of limitarianism that refers specifically to arguments made by Timmer (2021b). In ‘Having Too Much’, I introduced limitarianism, which in its most general formulation is the idea that in the world as it is, as well as in the most nearby possible worlds, no-one should have more than an upper threshold of valuable goods.22 Robeyns 2017. These valuable goods could be various types of scarce goods, and their distribution could be a concern at the macro or micro level. In this article, my focus will be on personal holdings of money—income and wealth in particular. Much of the writing on material inequalities focuses on the position of the worst off, and makes a distinction between the poor or disadvantaged and those who are not poor. Economic limitarianism changes that two-tiered categorization into a three-tiered distinction between (1) those who are poor or deprived; (2) those who are not poor, but also not very rich; and (3) those who are very rich. This reflects the material basis of the classic distinction in sociology between the working class, the middle class, and the upper class. Making such a three-layered distinction makes it possible to analyse what we owe to persons in each of those three groups, and also what persons in those groups owe to others, in a way that a distinction between only the poor and the non-poor doesn’t allow us to do. In particular, since limitarianism holds that, in the present and nearby possible worlds, holding large concentrations of wealth has no overall beneficial effects, we should morally prefer limitarianism to a situation in which some have too much.33 One might object that there are agents who could do more good with excess money than the state, in which case they should keep it. However, since limitarianism is about personal wealth that one keeps, and not about the wealth one has transferred to a charity or company which might be able to do that good, it rules out this option. However, this raises questions about how limitarianism would draw a clear line between personal wealth and wealth someone has as part of an organization or company, which I will have to take up in future work. I thank Robert Huseby this beneficial of this could be including to the of others, such as the of or that limitarianism does not to of in which all excess money is such beneficial excess money in is not the and should in not be it is not a or the excess money is of its on or its by the is and its would the of For political in on inequalities and distributive justice, the in focus to the upper of income and wealth distribution be have been in the of wealth the some and These that is in all the very are as an idea is a to the that there is with not in but with wealth in particular. that this can best be by the idea of limitarianism than what is with a of wealth the of and and give a of arguments about wealth is including in that be by the reasons about In that it a a concern with the of would also For the of reasons have been that are not all to One of the on limitarianism is the question of what of it has been world as it Robeyns In the world as it is, there is and are to there are that or goods that are and and a and large holdings of wealth allow their to and to engage in of that are in some to For example, that, in see I have limitarianism the present and nearby possible worlds, in which such and of we in a in which there are no is there are no or of that can be by and concentrations of money can no or the of political In that limitarianism would not of a of limitarianism might in such a such as an upper limit which is a of the holding of or limitarianism not in but in some other of These are in of limitarianism I does not to in that are not is the distribution of wealth in with in the and it is a other that is that are in some way it is a could be very such as a on which all or a a limitarianism is is a question that the of this is not the of wealth in that of what have and of the overall of we a one who is a limitarianism would not that to be an would not I thank this in limitarianism, at as I should be as a to as to a to the at which limitarianism I it as a to political I see this there is between the the distinction on the one and the distinction on the can be in of which the distinction is only I as I they are a formulation the distinction is to that the distinction between two in political is a one that to political what they take to be their the they will and the they will take to with that to various of this distinction related and what it how we do can be in Robeyns and and political with the of other and refers to and with that of work. Much of the on theories of distributive the has been political writing about how their is or how an could be or political political focuses on in the and with of is to those political does not the of but the of to at its the is to their and in a normative to the of or to the In political the and a of is to very of is also in political but the more is an to in a and way to in the this will also some with work. the of political and of political are not but each of in the will more to one of those two This is we might have on whether we are in or For example, a might be to in context and to in context but since and might context and context that might have some introduced at a of be to that, the might be more or it might be more on the which would its political is not is not if can be into or political is not whether are as as those to to the in the that all us we should This also has my to Robert Huseby’s which I in this article, in and Huseby that limitarianism is in a of egalitarianism and In the next sections, I will but it is to that in the on limitarianism I have it has been as a to than political in and I will with the since this is how I the Huseby’s In Section I will and I that limitarianism has an some that egalitarianism and sufficientarianism on their do not Huseby’s in the next sections, I to what I have about limitarianism in as well as to some other recent developments in the I to Huseby’s critique in this article, it is that I developments since Huseby’s critique the arguments in my Robeyns 2017. us with the with the of money and the and the of excess money and the threshold is the line which limitarianism no one should be there should be that are not the threshold on the and or there should be that the money the threshold to it the threshold or to it wealth is the money a has the threshold and which limitarianism the should not of the line and wealth are of the more general of the threshold and excess if we the of as the to the line is the of wealth at at some of there is no of wealth to is to be a and one at a certain of it is that more money will not the of which could or at the level. I have not out this account of in but to the that it is it is an account of than a or account. I have also that it should only the material of it is a political or in the that it is an account of the of in the and the of and I is that, on that account of the of the of money to that and it or at some or of in this is to be with to wealth is all the wealth a has the it is wealth that to such an and account of For more on the account of and the of the see Robeyns For an that the of the of the see Robeyns should be that in my on limitarianism no distinction has been made between the line and the or between excess money and with and have made it clear that the which we take and and the the line at which wealth not be the at the also Timmer reasons limitarianism could to For example, the threshold might be at the at which in personal wealth or at the at which wealth a to is and in that will to the threshold at which the of to Timmer has that should not that the of wealth or and that they could that there is the but that this is by other Timmer In my the account I is not a account of but a or political this can be account could in which wealth could personal but the distinction of the political account of us to that the of that In other there might well be on that is but the of as by the political is on limitarianism to the of limitarianism, as well as an of is those the of more in the on distributive has been and has to the question of who holds the of justice, who will the of and who could be the agents of by the has a in this but not has that there is a general that certain to be to someone in that political have not in about who the those to the of that have more into I will in Section this is the about limitarianism be to of is that it does not limitarianism that those who are the line will not have to be to or to the of valuable In my is that the of money to all is than the of wealth Robert Huseby that this is a Huseby I that, that the are not only and but also other of and in of and as well as various such as and other are very if that are all and together, the are In my that part of the I that if the to are that we should by those by the money that is not and if the money is not to all and we can the middle to also to I have two arguments limitarianism, I have that I do not two arguments are in of what could Robeyns 2017. has reasons limitarianism. is the I are related not to but also to of and and to as well as to and goods that are not such as or that if there are by the or other agents of that can and that the money should be to those other is the which that money is a to political and that, on the that it is not possible to between the of and the of we should on how money can limitarianism is a account of justice, which can be with of what the the idea that would not about what the threshold is those the there are that they can the example, to sufficientarianism, and all those could be or they could be or limitarianism to this of us the to of distributive that of than such pluralist of distributive might be seen by some as they on distributive pluralist are in the since we have reasons to distributive rules to persons with of argues this in to the distinction between the very worst and other I will to this in Section I what such a pluralist account of distributive could I will limitarianism be to sufficientarianism or we have egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, do we to Robert limitarianism is best seen as a of egalitarianism and sufficientarianism, and it is not as Huseby us at In limitarianism be to egalitarianism, there are of egalitarianism, each of the there are and it is a that has to be into a more it can be with limitarianism, since we the of a between limitarianism and a I will this by to Huseby’s that the limitarianism is an and provide a how limitarianism and egalitarianism are Huseby argues that limitarianism is the of political I that it is not and have limitarianism not political should not since limitarianism is to be a of there are also changes that are to political such as and as well as a distribution of wealth and other goods the political an of also Timmer to the to the of political is not that have is the I that large inequalities are what political and I it is that this might give us reasons to a threshold than an as in the case of the the us to the line as the the might to that doesn’t limitarianism it a are a to limit the of the is to out that there is about money which is that the opportunity in of those who it on political political is wealth who money on political are an opportunity in of their material are in how they can they are not of their will be very that the of the are on a of they can of money at no opportunity to the is by a in the holding of between In of the most is to the as do one can at the at the or Robeyns to at the arguments we should not at the most we should not at Huseby In at three should be this the that limitarianism has not been introduced as a of the other but as a that is in the on distributive Robeyns is to not to to the that the we to is political at the of the distribution will not who are poor will the in income to their of or they will be able to very to political In other the of by the worst up is not the as the of what the best be some but political the is more is and to the on certain that are by a of wealth. to the that we are with all that are by the distribution of it my that we should at as the that money should be the of the distribution to the of the or that those at the of the distribution should the of to there is an that as and which will the to a is However, I do not this is does not limitarianism egalitarianism is For one egalitarianism could be as an or as an an egalitarianism the of too to be in the world or of to of its to egalitarianism might also allow inequalities in that have the and that of sufficientarianism and limitarianism have limitarianism could have egalitarianism the is as of However, the most of Huseby’s arguments is not opportunity egalitarianism, but egalitarianism limitarianism egalitarianism of on the one to and theories on the other to of egalitarianism and sufficientarianism with a to as a on distributive in the that no inequalities in could be at who more and will more and will have more wealth. more or or very can all some inequalities in and in and For those who egalitarianism, limitarianism to be on inequalities in opportunity egalitarianism other of the In particular, what I an very is sufficientarianism and a threshold with of opportunity those who are between the and I will to such a in Section in is an a a distributive that limitarianism could be more or than an could be more with egalitarianism, and with in inequalities the threshold that an does not This makes limitarianism than such an the other if a account the threshold it might not allow certain holdings of material wealth that an of opportunity on the of the threshold and on the of the opportunity In I with Huseby that egalitarianism, as an would including political that limitarianism to to a than limitarianism. as an it might as an there are reasons not to is one of a more that us to that some inequalities be but that if inequalities are the too In of limitarianism, Huseby between the the and the its the I that this a of my statement of limitarianism. might more if we more reasons on whether each a and on the other of the wealth out what this will more than I can do but to two is that in some limitarianism might be in the that the is into it all the I that this might I Huseby as this is a of my I should be political to have the world as it is, and are to into and more as as all those in can one of the reasons limitarianism, they will each other to the in not on what the is also who has by of the that we political to be and not a is a not a as I in Section I that the two arguments might well to This will limitarianism to out how to with but I it is a to limitarianism. the should and to the of as will be in Section I to the critique that limitarianism is to limitarianism to with egalitarianism, there are of example, can in their their the of the and whether they are a or a Huseby between sufficientarianism and limitarianism is not at two which Huseby in recent article, is that the I and which makes a between the two a Huseby In the are not out in the they a threshold at the or at the of the to a threshold to a good we are in of and not in the of a certain we have a clear of we are sufficientarianism and limitarianism will limitarianism to be with a is in line with those who that sufficientarianism of to the that is, those who are in some not in a the threshold is, the more sufficientarianism is to of and to that is also the threshold should be which to the who the that has no distributive to This is a of the next has that the threshold since it would the of One might that one and that of other distributive in the the threshold or such as but we are about and is that the they is not a as I will in Section I of distributive justice, the task of whether limitarianism to sufficientarianism, we it with a and not with those that are that sufficientarianism two the of a certain the of certain distributive sufficientarianism only one and we do not the threshold and the sufficientarianism do the that limitarianism For those who that the of or is to normative limitarianism has been introduced to a distinction between three the deprived; those who are not but are not and those who have more than they has also been introduced to more focus on those who have or that the limitarianism with its focus on who should the be to In the the is since it of to the or the but only has will those be is limitarianism that with of one is all wealth. is but not is and and is at to the that such a does not have the would be with a to but limitarianism would the threshold are not what makes such they such One might that what is the at a more and that we should at which are limitarianism be to us the of that sufficientarianism can be on an such as of good Huseby is that the is in the that is not the only that this the other two focus on the is the of since by money to the of the it is to their money on if that money can of the is the of In of distributive discusses the of which that those who are most able to the or the have a or In the present we might this of into two those who have the to the money that is to the might not be the as those who have the to up and the if and they have the is also on the of those who have the should be the to about the with a one might a that the threshold as to the of makes limitarianism a there is a threshold at the or and a at the of a to be the that, sufficientarianism and limitarianism most Robeyns is to the on its are in the of a threshold of and to as as possible to that threshold or to that by are in the of and are about should be on or one or more are about should be a are about that has of what are about too scarce are threshold but they are are an or a to the question is to are a answer to the question do those the threshold owe to in the not only to the of or but can also to a of that by excess wealth might object that, limitarianism is a of I would to this at three as I at the of this I with those who the of sufficientarianism is to focus on a of that we to sufficientarianism with to the between can no be out in but they are pluralist or theories that add to what is the focus of on is to since the line is as a are that the by wealth and are all but the and the of or and that of excess wealth are the to engage with and draw on by theories there the question of out the of the the of the This is the questions about the distributive of that are the literature. In the than whether limitarianism can be to sufficientarianism, I more is to be the of combining those to which I is a distributive it can be with rules or the threshold in to a account of an focus on the of the the will be or those who will have with the to such as income or a on holds For example, has that sufficientarianism is able to to the that it is to what the threshold if it part of a pluralist that with egalitarianism, pluralist to and also discusses pluralist in detailed critique of In my limitarianism can provide with some that to their account more and the is the threshold is limitarianism can us a between that threshold by those who have more than they or those who are not are not as the in there is a threshold that is than the the questions can be and limitarianism can the in an account of distributive the threshold at the of the we have a that is in is it with what we to on the one to the of excess on the other it is it is with who should to the and at and how they should one or more with to about the the of will be of distributive can be pluralist the distributive rules that to of the or they can be pluralist in to the distributive rules that to of are also very to be pluralist with to the that the will to One pluralist that, in my is an account of distributive that has three This pluralist account of distributive to at the in and the on the of distributive would be a threshold in of and which makes of can a or For this the of and would be the most and of personal and would not a would a limit on and as to a of including political and would between the threshold and the threshold and an account of of opportunity would be its most I do not have the space to out such an it is pluralist in of its distributive and that distributive and that those in some a pluralist account of distributive as us to give to some in some of the is the case in of as This very no questions but I it can to the that by limitarianism to of distributive justice, we are theories of distributive more in out what we the world as it is and nearby possible In the sections, I against the that limitarianism can be to a of and the of the that Huseby I have that limitarianism has to theories of that we in a of egalitarianism or in of sufficientarianism the that they are and not in as they are In this I to to some made and draw some whether a is would ask us to engage with all its arguments if there is a and it might be the case that those who are with and should be a that best two I this general to how one should limitarianism. of the a that the to which is that some the middle would have on or goods could keep wealth which does not their does not the that some arguments are by other that limitarianism have its of and is a to be it the as Huseby that limitarianism to egalitarianism or would have to be that we could and the normative with wealth the of and the about a focus on the upper of the distribution is to us to ask and what the reasons are about wealth. wealth worries that concern all of the not about who will the of the of by those who can do at no to a of the of and the of and to not These normative be with the and on the of egalitarianism and how I see the on which limitarianism should be introduced as of distributive or account of distributive Robeyns I that to be but I have also to see more that political have on what they take to be a of distributive my take on this is than those of political are in what the reasons a certain normative are and whether those reasons are political are in at a one of those reasons can be to they reasons that have a to to I this is the case limitarianism, and I the political in limitarianism to this the question about what limitarianism contributes be to whether at a limitarianism is to egalitarianism and are to be who the position that egalitarianism is but that there should be on by the and by excess inequalities between those two will also be those who about distributive in and that the of in and in the is the most to and who limitarianism on those there will be those who have and that of wealth it only to the of goods and is in a in which are groups, and others, can on the political and of to wealth it is to about a to limit wealth each can have to whether there is, in a about also Timmer on limitarianism as a it is that not all will have reasons to but if all have to limitarianism, that is a the an of political is to in such as this limitarianism will be more since can up to the but not would up to or question of what the and of limitarianism are be what we a of of the question that can be to that also there to be reasons to a normative they have as an as political that their normative be in they limitarianism to be by the answer to the question whether it can to in the world as it is and in nearby possible worlds, by it into or by the in a there are reasons to limitarianism, and it does not us to the of egalitarianism, limitarianism does have a to in political