User Profile

"We operate here on as tenuous a basis as some endangered bird. A table scrap thrown to the diminishing minority in Congress that doesn’t go with the whole program of the party in power."

— Tropic of Kansas by Christopher Brown (Page 87)

We all agree that we need a system of checks and balances; if we delegate political power to one institution then we need countervailing power in others. Why then don't we have such a balance of economic power? That economics is a domain of power was first recognized by thinkers centuries ago.

— Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns (61%)

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. Does this sound like the world Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are giving us? I don't think so.

— Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns (59%)

We've thus ended up in an era in which very few people will defend communism, understood as the central planning of the entire economy. To me that is not surprising. I reject it too. Thinking that an entire economy can be planned from above, including who needs which consumer goods, who will do what kind of work, where to buy groceries and at what prices, and so on, seems an incredible act of hubris. And it is not difficult to see that, on a national scale, such a massive planning exercise could only be done in a non-democratic system, since many people would prefer to be entrepreneurial.

The claim that limitarianism is essentially communism -- defined in this manner -- is at once hilarious and deeply sad. It is hilarious because you really don't need an economics degree to see that there is no need for USSR style communism if we want to live in a world without extreme wealth concentration. The claim entails a confusion of categories: communism is an economic system with political implications, whereas limitarianism is a moral principle that should, first of all, guide the design of our economic end social institutions, and, secondly, our own personal decision-making.

— Limitarianism by Ingrid Robeyns (58%)