Ill fares the land? The case for/against the democratic argument for limitarianism.

Abstract

This Master’s thesis reconstructs the democratic argument for upper limits on wealth and situates it within the more encompassing justification for limitarianism. The central claim is that the democratic argument is a well-chosen defense for limitarianism if the latter is understood as a non-ideal theory. Limitarianism is accordingly characterized as a derivative, incomplete and transitional theory. Finally, it is argued that a non-ideal account of limitarianism (1) can cope with paradigmatic challenges raised against upper limits on wealth, (2) comes at substantial methodological costs and (3) has important implications for future research.