#Ingrid Robeyns

[judgingbooksbycovers]

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth

By Ingrid Robeyns.

Design by Jamie Keenan.

[rodgermalcolmmitchell]

Another problem with the income/wealth/power Gap

In our previous discussions, we’ve introduced you to Gap Psychology, a concept that fuels the desire to widen the income/wealth/power Gap below and to narrow the Gap above. This psychological phenomenon not only perpetuates social disparities but also has dire implications for our environment. The very rich want wide Gaps because, without Gaps, no one would be rich. We all would be the same. The…

[primmlife]

Review: Limitarianism

Review: Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns from Astra House #extremewealth #economics #limitarianism #eattherich

Billionaires shouldn’t exist. It feels weird for me to write that sentence even though I intellectually know it to be true. My younger, conservative self would be dumbfounded if he knew he would one day write those words. But they are the truth. Extreme wealth has thrown society out of balance in many ways. It was something I began to suspect long before Elon’s very public and ongoing mental…

[aurianneor]

Limiter la richesse individuelle

Les frères Gracchus, Gaius et Tibérius, étaient tribuns, l'équivalent de nos députés et ils ont voulu s'attaquer aux problèmes de l'époque. Les riches étaient peu nombreux mais possédaient presque toutes les terres. Comme ils produisaient toutes les céréales, ils se mettaient d'accord entre eux pour fixer un prix élevé et faisaient venir des étrangers pour travailler à des salaires très bas que les citoyens romains n'acceptaient pas. En 133 avant J-C, Rome était plongée dans une pauvreté généralisée qui tourmentait Rome. Les frères Gracchus ont fait voter une loi qui s'appelait propriété et elle affirmait que la propriété avait une limite en quantité au-delà de laquelle elle était toxique pour la société et une limite d'usage selon laquelle ce n'est pas parce que c'est à moi que je peux en faire ce que je veux. Les frères Gracchus ont été saisis par les riches et leurs hommes de main et jetés dans le Tribe. S'en est suivi 100 ans de guerre civile entre la plèbe et les riches avant que l'empereur Auguste n'instaure les lois des frères Gracchus profitant de l'émoi causé par la mort de Jules César. Quatre cent ans de paix et de prospérité ont suivi. 

En 1930, en France, des juges ont crée le service public de l'eau, nationalisant les sources. Cela a montré que la propriété privée n'est pas sacrée. Ils ont exproprié les propriétaires, et c'était normal. Léon Blum a été harcelé et a quitté sa fonction. 

La victoire du Labour en 1945 au Royaume-Uni a permis d'exproprier les propriétaires de mines. La propriété n'est pas absolue. Les propriétaires sont devenus moins riches et cela les a fait passer en-dessous de la limite de toxicité.

Le 24 novembre 2013, en Suisse, est votée une loi limitant les salaires à 250 fois le salaire minimum. Cela veut dire que pour que les salaires les plus hauts augmentent, il faut augmenter les salaires les plus bas. A titre de comparaison, en France en 2019, les patrons du CAQ40 gagnaient 1128 fois le salaire de leurs employés les plus modestes. Les riches sont très heureux en Suisse.

En 2022, en Ukraine, profitant de l'opportunité de pouvoirs exceptionnels liés à la guerre, le président Zelensky a nationalisé les banques, les chaînes de télévision et les industries possédées par les oligarques. Ceux-ci étaient tellement riches qu'ils décidaient de tout dans le pays, les caisses ukrainiennes étant vides.

Quand Elon Musk intervient dans la guerre en Ukraine, c'est trop. Quand Mark Zuckerberg favorise l'élection de Trump pour s'enrichir, c'est trop. Quand une personne est suffisamment riche pour avoir un propre programme spatial ou a plus d'argent qu'un pays, c'est trop. Quand tes décisions peuvent ruiner la vie de millions de gens alors que tu n'as pas été élu, c'est trop. Quand les 1% les plus riches de l'humanité émettent 100 fois plus de gaz à effet de serre que ceux qui émettent les 99% autres, c'est trop. 

Ces gens méritent d'être riches mais pas à ce point. Ils n'ont jamais rendu à la société ce que la société leur avait donné en premier lieu. La société a formé leurs employés avec des écoles et des universités; ceux-ci sont en bonne santé grâce aux hôpitaux, il y a des routes, des chemins de fer et des aéroports pour transporter leurs biens. Il y a une police et une armée pour les protéger et une justice pour faire valoir leurs droits. Il y a des ressources naturelles pour alimenter leurs industries, etc.

La Columbia University estime que 100 millions de dollars est une limite. C'est largement suffisant pour la personne et pas assez pour être toxique. (Putting a Limit On Wealth - Stephen H. Unger: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/wealthLimit.html)

What, if Anything, is Wrong with Extreme wealth: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/19452829.2019.1633734?needAccess=true&role=button

Having too Much - Ingrid Robeyns: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0338

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Les autorités illégitimes: https://www.aurianneor.org/les-autorites-illegitimes/

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-world-has-enough-for-everyones-need-but-not/

You can’t get enough… Enough!: https://www.aurianneor.org/you-cant-get-enough-enough-the-same-companies/

Qui se cache derrière le drapeau?: https://www.aurianneor.org/qui-se-cache-derriere-le-drapeau/

Riche: https://www.aurianneor.org/riche-cetait-une-belle-journee-et-le-paysage/

Liberté et vivre ensemble: https://www.aurianneor.org/liberte-et-vivre-ensemble/

Tomorrow – Chap 4: La démocratie: https://www.aurianneor.org/tomorrow-chap-4-la-democratie-the-panama/

Solidarité Hélvétique: https://www.aurianneor.org/solidarite-helvetique-democratie-semi-directe/

[vague-humanoid]

No One Should Have More Than 10 Million Pounds | Ash Sarkar meets Ingrid Robeyns

[newsnoshonline]

Quanto ricco è troppo ricco? La Storia Millenaria dei Limiti alla Ricchezza Le richieste di limiti alla ricchezza risalgono all’antichità, con sostegno da parte di filosofi, leader politici e testi sacri. Si è discusso su come la disuguaglianza di ricchezza influenzi la stabilità politica e la coesione sociale da tempi immemorabili. Un Nuovo Approccio al Limitarismo: Introduzione di Ingrid Robeyns Ingrid Robeyns propone un limite massimo di ricchezza per persona, sostenendo che un tetto di 10 milioni di euro o dollari potrebbe rappresentare un equilibrio accettabile secondo valori morali e politici condivisi. La sua ricerca indica un’ampia accettazione di questo concetto tra la popolazione. Legame

[ear-worthy]

Open To Debate Podcast: Does Taylor Swift (Or Anyone) Deserve A Billion Dollars?

This week, the nonpartisan debate podcast Open to Debate released an episode debating the question: “Does Taylor Swift Deserve Her Billion Dollar Fortune?”

The Open To Debate podcast plays a critical role in our society today.

Open to Debate is a call to action: All of us should keep an open mind to solve the complex problems we face as individuals and as a nation.

Open to Debate is a reminder: To solve our greatest problems, we must operate in a contempt-free zone. We need to be able to sit in the same room and exchange ideas with people we disagree with. Being open to debate is a gesture of respect for the good faith arguments of those we disagree with, for the intelligence and integrity of those who watch or listen, and for the value of debate done right.

Open to Debate is a duty: The future of American Democracy depends on the strength of communities to work together and overcome our differences. “Us vs. Them” thinking is destructive to our social fabric, and we need a national model to guide debates to a healthy and free exchange of ideas.

The mission of Open to Debate is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to America’s public square. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues. Check out Open To Debate. Perhaps you'll have a prejudice exposed or a firmly held belief questioned.

Swift — declared officially a billionaire by Bloomberg and Forbes last fall, generated broader questions about whether billionaires are a policy failure and debate various philosophies about the distribution of wealth.

"All of this stuff that Taylor has done for the world is priceless —you can't put a price tag on how influential and important her work has been to so many people,"” argues Political Philosopher Jessica Flanigan, author of an upcoming book about the philosophy behind Taylor Swift's music. “ "A society that produces billionaires like Taylor Swift is good for everybody," says Flanigan. “No matter how amazing a person Taylor Swift is, she shouldn't’t be a billionaire because no one should be a billionaire,” counters Ingrid Robeyns, author of the book Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth. "We focus here on an individual, but really the bigger question is: What kind of society do we want?" asks Robeyns.

Joining the conversation to ask questions and test the debaters' arguments are Anne Helen Petersen (Culture Study), Abha Bhattarai (Washington Post), Richard Wolff (UMass Amherst), Allison Schrager (Manhattan Institute), and Zack O'Malley Greenburg (Zogblog).

Read a recap of the taping in Fast Company.

Listen to the full episode at opentodebate.org (with video) or wherever you get podcasts.

And for those of you who have watched too much of a certain news network and actually believe that Taylor Swift is a CIA spy or Deep State operative, I recommend you detox on cat videos or music videos from the 80s.

[jinxxpal]

This is such an important topic that should be discussed more.

[hackernewsrobot]

Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth: Ingrid Robeyns

https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Ingrid-Robeyns/Limitarianism--The-Case-Against-Extreme-Wealth/28866492

[aurianneor]

Restricting personal wealth

The Gracchus brothers, Gaius and Tiberius, were tribunes, the equivalent of our deputies, and they wanted to tackle the problems of the time. The rich were few in number but owned almost all the land. As they produced all the cereals, they agreed among themselves to set a high price and brought in foreigners to work for very low wages that Roman citizens would not accept. By 133 B.C., Rome was plunged into widespread poverty, which tormented the city. The Gracchus brothers passed a law called property, which stated that property had a limit in quantity, beyond which it was toxic for society, and a limit in use, according to which just because it’s mine doesn’t mean I can do what I want with it. The Gracchus brothers were seized by the rich and their henchmen and thrown into the Tribe. What followed was 100 years of civil war between the plebs and the rich, before Emperor Augustus took advantage of the turmoil caused by the death of Julius Caesar to institute the laws of the Gracchus brothers. Four hundred years of peace and prosperity followed.

In 1930, in France, judges created the public water utility, nationalizing the springs. This showed that private property is not sacred. They expropriated the owners, and that was normal. Léon Blum was harassed and left office.

Labour’s victory in 1945 in the UK led to the expropriation of mine owners. Ownership is not absolute. Owners became less wealthy and this pushed them below the toxic limit.

On November 24, 2013, in Switzerland, a law was passed limiting wages to 250 times the minimum wage. This means that for the highest wages to rise, the lowest wages must be increased. By way of comparison, in France in 2019, CAQ40 bosses earned 1128 times the salary of their most modest employees. The rich are very happy in Switzerland.

In 2022, in Ukraine, taking advantage of exceptional war powers, President Zelensky nationalized the banks, TV channels and industries owned by the oligarchs. The oligarchs were so wealthy that they decided everything in the country, as the Ukrainian coffers were empty.

When Elon Musk intervenes in the war in Ukraine, it’s too much. When Mark Zuckerberg favors Trump’s election to enrich himself, it’s too much. When someone is rich enough to have their own space program or has more money than a country, it’s too much. When your decisions can ruin the lives of millions of people even though you weren’t elected, it’s too much. When the richest 1% of humanity emit 100 times more greenhouse gases than the other 99%, it’s too much.

These people deserve to be rich, but not that rich. They have never given back to society what society gave them in the first place. Society has trained their employees with schools and universities; they are healthy thanks to hospitals, there are roads, railroads and airports to transport their goods. There is a police force and an army to protect them, and a justice system to enforce their rights. There are natural resources to fuel their industries, etc.

Columbia University believes that $100 million is the limit. It’s more than enough for the individual and not enough to be toxic (Putting a Limit On Wealth – Stephen H. Unger: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/wealthLimit.html)

What, if Anything, is Wrong with Extreme wealth – Ingrid Robeyns : https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/19452829.2019.1633734?needAccess=true&role=button

Having too Much – Ingrid Robeyns: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0338

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Limiter la richesse individuelle: https://www.aurianneor.org/limiter-la-richesse-individuelle/

Solidarité Hélvétique: https://www.aurianneor.org/solidarite-helvetique-democratie-semi-directe/

Tomorrow – Chap 4: La démocratie: https://www.aurianneor.org/tomorrow-chap-4-la-democratie-the-panama/

Freedom and coexistence: https://www.aurianneor.org/freedom-and-coexistence/

Rich: https://www.aurianneor.org/rich-it-was-a-beautiful-day-and-the-scenery-was/

Qui se cache derrière le drapeau?: https://www.aurianneor.org/qui-se-cache-derriere-le-drapeau/

You can’t get enough… Enough!: https://www.aurianneor.org/you-cant-get-enough-enough-the-same-companies/

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed”.: https://www.aurianneor.org/the-world-has-enough-for-everyones-need-but-not/

Illegitimate authorities: https://www.aurianneor.org/illegitimate-authorities/

[bits-and-pieces-am]

Individually and collectively, it is time to decide what “enough” looks like, and how to know when we’ve achieved it. There’s a name for this approach, coined by the Belgian philosopher Ingrid Robeyns: limitarianism. Robeyns argues that there should be an upper limit to the amount of income and wealth a person can amass. Just as we recognise a poverty line, below which no one should fall, we should recognise a riches line, above which no one should rise. This call for a levelling down is perhaps the most blasphemous idea in contemporary discourse. But her arguments are sound. Surplus money allows some people to exercise inordinate power over others: in the workplace; in politics; and above all in the capture, use and destruction of the planet’s natural wealth. If everyone is to flourish, we cannot afford the rich. Nor can we afford our own aspirations, which the culture of wealth maximisation encourages.

“For the sake of life on Earth, we must put a limit on wealth”, George Monbiot (The Guardian)