Read a bit of the article and realized he's not the type of person I give a damn about what they think so I skipped the rest.

I am for the redistribution of wealth but not by killing. Just tax the shit out of people after a certain point. As I see it there's a limit to how much you can realistically spend. I mean, when you get enough money to buy an island or two, maybe a few castles... you've past that limit.

You know those psych tests that psychologists make you take that test your general sanity by asking questions like "Do you think Superman is real?" Well, we need a new question that goes like "Do you think it's okay to kill someone that makes more money than you?"

Yes... you can inherit :D

I think that was Steve Jobs.

How do you judge 'greedier'? A dollar value? Where do you draw that line? How do you judge 'more crooked'? Those that are successful? And what do you do about their children? They inherit what the parents have/had. Or do you just start killing children as well? And how do you get their wealth? Surely you don't believe it's just lying around as a big chunk of cash in a safe? So who gets their property/possessions? How do you redistribute their investments and holdings?

Who's going to do the killing? You?

He's certainly as good a candidate as any should the situation we're talking about come to pass, but there are certainly worse who have a place aheard of him in the queue.

All I all though I see now ultimate need for any of them to die unless they consider their wealth of more worth than their lives if and when the time arrives to choose between giving one of them up.

So you take the means of production from producers and what do you think is going to happen?

The world continues to turn, but in a dfferent direction and probably rather bumpy for a time until the people realise there are other paths to living a life that don't include the worship of money.

Then go out and pursue those paths, nobody is stopping you. Don't participate in the system you appear to hate. Good luck!

I don't need to see rain to know it's wet.

There things define themselves and it's certainly not difficult to see, and I'm pretty sure money for the sake of money, and that's what it becomse after a certain amount because more just doesn't make any noticable difference, is a pretty good place to start.

Everyone gets it, you don't seem to understand 'redistribution' very well... Or are you going to really try to agrue that there is no one intelligent and honest enough left in the world at all who is capable for seeing solutions to the issues that would arise?

I'd stay and argue with you, but i'm off to be a productive member of society. Perhaps when I get home you won't have made more of an ass of yourself than you have so far this morning.

I'm sorry you hate the situation you are in and aren't willing to change it save through theft and murder.

Good Bye then.

Judge, jury, and executioner are you? So what's the dollar value where you 'just know' they're crooked? I'll have to keep that figure in mind and make sure my income/net worth is a dollar less.

I understand redistribution quite well. My question is, how is it determined who gets what? Who decides how it's distributed?

I think that the underlying point has value, but both talking about individuals and suggesting killing them derails any discussion.

Think of corporations such as everyone's beloved EA, or Disney, or the RIAA or whatever big corporation you "love". That love of money over everything else is making such companies screw people. A world where everything is measured by profit, and where there's no "good enough", will always end up immoral. I can perfectly understand where resentment to such corporations come from.

That's why things like Kickstarter come into being, trying to be more hands on, where people feel they have a say.