It's fun how someone tried to imagine an extravagantly enormous fortune, outside of their scope of realism, yet some people possess more. The point being that a fortune too big to enter the realm of what could be consider possible by some is disproportionate for a human being, and when some people struggle to live with less, it brings into question the repartition of riches between someone who couldn't eat their money if they tried and someone who can't eat at all.
For one: Their money isn't literally or even practically a pile of wealth just sitting around and being hoarded.
And more importantly: Even if people were sitting on it like dragons, it's theirs. Not yours, not mine, not anybody else's.
1. It isn't physical, material money; it's still wealth. They possess it for themselves.
2. Yes, and so what? Sorry I don't live with blinkers on and don't only consider the things I personnally own or experience. It's theirs, good for them. I said it raised a question. Because it does; on multiple levels. Thinking is free, we can all try it.
(unfollowing so I won't see the answers, if it ends up like last time they won't be worth reading)
But they don't possess it for themselves, there are not big piles of money sitting around. It's property, assets, appraisals, credit, on and on.
There is no question raised. If they stole anything the courts can shake that out, otherwise they only have what people are willing to give them. It is wrong and immoral to even consider "repartition" of what belongs to others. That's the exact question that leads to peasants reporting one another to the secret police for having more grain or chickens than somebody else.
And more importantly: Even if people were sitting on it like dragons, it's theirs. Not yours, not mine, not anybody else's.
2. Yes, and so what? Sorry I don't live with blinkers on and don't only consider the things I personnally own or experience. It's theirs, good for them. I said it raised a question. Because it does; on multiple levels. Thinking is free, we can all try it.
(unfollowing so I won't see the answers, if it ends up like last time they won't be worth reading)
There is no question raised. If they stole anything the courts can shake that out, otherwise they only have what people are willing to give them. It is wrong and immoral to even consider "repartition" of what belongs to others. That's the exact question that leads to peasants reporting one another to the secret police for having more grain or chickens than somebody else.