Though limitarianism applies differently to varied fields of study, what is always common is an examination of when it is proper, moral or ethical to interfere and intervene in the lives and freedoms of individuals, in order to benefit society as a whole.
[1][clarification needed] Democratic limitarianism is a political theory which posits that governments have priority duties to their citizenry to protect it from risk and to ensure independence from fear.
It rather sets to determine and enforce a limit on the accumulation thereof, as means of creating a positive change in the economic system of a nation.
Nicklas is not convinced that there could be an over-arching objective economic measure of people's financial needs to assert a 'good life', a criticism already raised earlier by Bluestein.
[10] Nicklas also pointed out, that the striving for political power and the abuse thereof shall continue, even if there had been a limit placed on individual wealth.
[citation needed] They call for a revolutionary collectivisation and either complete or very expansive abolition of private property, as means of creating greater social equity.
However, while sufficientarianism deals with questions regarding what people should have or need to be granted, limitarianism examines how to place limits of excess on accumulation of wealth.