They can be whatever they want. The point is the Dutch don't control Kyrgyzstan not that the Dutch should wait for Kyrgyzstan to agree to how the Dutch want to live/regulate themselves or that the populations themselves have different importance.
The point is that they are trying to address inequality and immoral use of wealth and the article treats us to biblical and historical examples. Then the idea is applied "equally" only within political and regional constraints. Is limitarianism a philosophy or political stance?
Why does whether the entire world is ready to and can feasibly adopt the idea at the same time play into what the idea is? Why can't it be both a philosophical stance and a political stance at the same time?
They desire wealth equality and consider it morally sound. That doesn't mean they also have an answer to every problem external to them or expect a global kumbaya about it overnight. This does not preclude the idea being anything in the same way one wanting safety regulations in their country isn't precluded by solving every other safety regulation problem around the world first, at the same time, and via the exact same steps.
I don't even particularly agree with the idea, this line of "gotcha" just doesn't follow.
Not sure what you are calling a "gotcha". You seem to be misunderstanding or misrepresenting my statements, I never called for them to solve world problems. I don't necessarily disagree with the premise, I simply ask for consistency of the idea. Implementation of it is another discussion.
The "gotcha" is the surface level claim it's inconsistent because it follows borders (indirectly initally stated for diminutive effect). That's not inherently inconsistent in itself, I've attempted to explain why, and you've given no defense as to why it should always be inconsistent and how that explanation applies to other philosophies considered consistent.
Disagreeing with an ideology comes down to more than parading a surface level claim to declare the entire idea misaligned. You have to dissect that idea, try to find ways to defend it, then cleanly counter those ideas. Throwing up a facetious one liner is the exact opposite of inspecting a philosophy and it's easy to misunderstand any set of morals that way.
As another example of why it's poor form of logic: "He thinks it's okay to kill some people but not others, that must be unethical and misaligned - why does it matter who it is it should always apply equally! The morality is therefore inherently flawed unless this is corrected." when the actual moral was that there are only certain cases it makes moral sense to kill someone (with some justifications if you dive into it) like compassion for terminal illness. Instead of the surface level "gotcha" denial you would dive into what these reasons might be and why you disagree with them, not just blurt the surface disagreement. This tends to be a lot more discussive of the idea instead of immediately dismissive, even when you ultimately disagree with it.
