Ingrid Robeyns.
In a world where billionaires race to space and wealth concentrates in ever-fewer hands, philosopher and economist Ingrid Robeyns offers a refreshingly bold idea: maybe there should be a limit to how much wealth one person can ethically or politically possess. She calls it Limitarianism, and it's a concept that speaks not only to modern anxieties about inequality and climate crisis, but also echoes the deeper moral traditions of European thought — from ancient Stoicism to Christian thinkers like Saint Augustine.
What is Limitarianism?
At its core, limitarianism is the view that no one should be extremely rich. While most political philosophy focuses on alleviating poverty, Robeyns asks the opposite question: how much is too much? Drawing on empirical data, ethical theory, and political reflection, she argues that there is a moral upper limit to personal wealth, and exceeding that limit is unjustifiable — especially in societies where essential needs remain unmet.
Robeyns distinguishes between two versions of the idea:
Moral limitarianism: it is morally wrong for someone to have more wealth than they could reasonably need to lead a flourishing life (she tentatively places this at around €1 million).
Political limitarianism: the state should adopt measures to prevent excessive wealth, not as punishment, but to ensure democracy and sustainability (with the upper threshold possibly around €10 million).
This is not about envy or punishing success. It's about redirecting surplus resources — the part of wealth far beyond what’s needed for a dignified life — toward collective well-being: education, healthcare, climate adaptation, public space.
An European Ethic?
Limitarianism may strike some as radical in a global capitalist culture that glorifies the ultra-rich. But for European audiences, especially, Robeyns’ message resonates deeply. It revives a long-standing continental tradition of questioning excess — moral, economic, and personal.
Saint Augustine, writing in the early 5th century, famously warned that “it is not poverty that is to be feared, but the love of riches.” For Augustine, the good life was not one of opulence, but of justice, humility, and service to the common good. Robeyns’ arguments mirror this spiritual logic: hoarding wealth is not just an economic error, but a moral failure that erodes community and distracts from higher goods.
From medieval Christendom’s suspicion of avarice to the welfare values embedded in post-war European social democracies, limiting extreme wealth is not a new idea — it's a forgotten one. Robeyns simply gives it new language and empirical grounding.
Why It Matters Now
We live in a time when extreme wealth poses direct threats:
To democracy, as money buys political influence.
To climate justice, as luxury lifestyles drive disproportionate emissions.
To social cohesion, as inequality fuels mistrust and resentment.
Robeyns does not claim limitarianism solves everything. But it starts an urgently needed conversation: not just how to help the poor, but how to restrain the power of the hyper-rich. Her work encourages us to imagine economic systems that are fairer, freer, and more focused on human flourishing than personal accumulation.
And perhaps that is her most radical idea: that justice is not only about lifting the floor, but also lowering the ceiling.
Further Reading
Ingrid Robeyns, Limitarianism: The Case Against Extreme Wealth (2024)
Ingrid Robeyns (ed.), Having Too Much: Philosophical Essays on Limitarianism (Open Book Publishers, 2023)
“Why Limitarianism?”, Journal of Political Philosophy (2022)
Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-examined (Open Book Publishers, 2017)
Saint Augustine, City of God, Book XIX
Thomas Piketty, Capital and Ideology (2020)