Reviews and Comments

This is the final book in the First Law trilogy, which I can’t stop recommending to people. The way it all wraps up, coiled tightly like a spring in a watch, powering the most intricate hands round-and-round as it tells the story. Brilliant!

In order to flourish as individuals and a society we must free ourselves from the strictures of standardized testing, industrialized education, “accelerated learning”, technocratic utopianism, solutionism, longtermism, white supremacy and eugenic thinking, the carceral state, credit scoring and the “ordinal society” (See Fourcade and Healy), and more! It is hard to be imaginative when we are oppressed… but we have to be imaginative to overthrow the oppressors. In an ultimately hopeful argument, Benjamin provides example after example of real projects where humans work together to protect one another and lift one another up. She argues for “radical interdependence” and building a safe, equitable society to further our collective “radical imagination.”

Ch: Blind spot is mis-interpretation of Rawls. Although he tried to unite positive & negative liberty, he actually prioritized the negative: autonomy depends on well-governed state; not everyone will engage with politics, ie political equality is merely a good competing with other goods. This gave neolibs their opening, and the people permission not to use their voice. Ends by saying she is not going to fix Rawls.

Prologue: Recent political outcomes have not matched political beliefs. We're “surprised” by a blind spot. Need a new justice-focused political economy that allows for human flourishing: "power-sharing liberalism". Political equality protects justice; justice achieved by democracy. Identifies with fallibilist, corrigibilist democratic eudaemonism. (Kinda Deweyen pragmatism. Speaks of “non-domination”… Anarchism?)

Abandoned at 25%. Just not enjoying it… so many other books out there that need reading!

… this wore me out. Emotionally… wrung out. Each chapter he just squeezes, squeezes, squeezes. The characters are so real. Lynch's writing is very poetic. He uses denominalization heavily. The writing makes everything feel alive, even the dead.

Ch10: Inequality not widely understood. Poor tend to think they are richer than they are, and rich think they are poorer. She does not advocate for a specific economic system, but thinks that one that supports Limitarianism would include: dismantling Neoliberalism; reduce class segregation; strong tax system, tax income from capital just as much as labour; limiting exec pay; halt intergenerational wealth.

Ch9: There are self-serving reasons for the rich to accept Limitarianism. 1. prevent political instability ⋔ 2. economic growth (strong middle class with good wages is the source of demand, and thus profits) 3. wealth is bad for your psychological welfare (addiction, lack of empathy, constant power imbalance, “affluenza”). We should help the rich like we help the psychological problems of the poor.

Ch8: Philanthropy is undemocratic and amoral. As per Ch2 much of the money is dirty. Taxes > Philanthropy both morally AND in terms of efficiency. Runs through args for private philanthropy but basically cuts each down. Also slaps the effective altruism movement. Give away the gap between the ethical wealth cap and the legal Wealth cap. Basically, we should give away our MORALLY earned money to the ethical limit.

Ch7: Utility of money declines the more you have (Bentham). Excess money should go to general society to benefit all, eg extreme global poverty. No means-testing! Bootstraps are a myth! BIG in Namibia (a UBI) worked. Poverty in developed nations too: hungry kids, expensive benefits. A section on Innovation, leaning on Mazzucato. No evidence rich work less if they are taxed more. There are other incentives.

Ch6: Do people deserve big pay? Argues profits are part of social contract: no individual right to profits. Inheritance not deserved, exceptional salaries do not reflect exceptional performance. Much depends on luck. However not full determinism: there IS agency. Allows for SOME disparity, but not like now. Prosperity depends on who came before and infra. Social mobility is actually not that much, and getting worse

Ch5: How the rich overly contribute to GHGs, not only because they consume a lot more, but also benefit from carbon intensive investment choices. Question: how to divide the remaining carbon budget fairly? Interesting approaches, but all result in way less what we are doing now. She really argues for a state-based solution. Heavily tax the super rich and use that money to transition the economy for everyone’s benefit

Ch4: wealth inequality threatens democracy. Commodification of citizenship (sale of political rights for money). Lobbyists, corps threatening to leave a tax domain to get laws passed, rich buying media outlets, Koch Network activities. Well-connected group actively rigging the rules to grow the capital they already have. All rich ppl benefit from this. Neolibs play into hands of fascists and RW politics.

Ch3: “Dirty Money” Questions morality of how people got their money in the first place: inheritors of Nazi Germany industrial wealth, Atlantic slave trade. Discussion of Reparations. Klepts. Socialized risk. Labour exploitation. Immorality of Tax Dodging. “fiscal engineering by the wealth defense industry” Wealth inequality is likely a lot worse than we think, since much of wealth is undetected.