tend to be societies that atrophy and die.
Think of France prior to the revolution, or Tsarist Russia. Think of the Roman empire once the republic was essentially abandoned and wealth became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. After conquering Greece (and assimilating much of its culture) the Romans essentially did nothing in terms of progress--no great inventions, few if any great voyages of exploration. Why invest in new technologies when you can simply buy more slaves or mercenaries to do your bidding? By contrast, Britain had its greatest expansion both politically and technologically when the power of the royals began to be limited, and it became "a nation of shopkeepers," that is, a growing middle class.
Great wealth of the kind we're discussing here--on a level with the Koch brothers for instance--impedes the ability of others to innovate. Look at what's happened in terms of alternative energy. The Kochs have repeatedly manipulated both the markets and, increasingly, local state and federal governments to protect their ability to accumulate more wealth. Their jihad against climate science has delayed progress on dealing with global warming now for at least a decade--to the point where the entire planet is now in jeopardy.
Humans do very well with limits. We have limited strength, limited life spans, limited ability to manipulate time and space. Try raising a child without setting any limits. Try driving to work sometime without obeying "limits" such as stop signs, red lights, speed limits, and see what happens.
We did very well when the top income brackets, under Eisenhower, were taxed upwards of ninety-percent.
Sure, some people will always try to test the limits, some legally, some not. That's not an argument per se against limits.
= new reply since forum marked as read