You are misinterpreting my intent. Perhaps I was not clear, though I thought I was. What I was saying is that if someone becomes rich through any of those mea

You are misinterpreting my intent. Perhaps I was not clear, though I thought I was. What I was saying is that if someone becomes rich through any of those means than it is almost certainly immoral (note the almost) and that it will most likely lead to problems in society. (Again, note I am talking about people beocming rich this way. Using wealth redistribution to say gauruntee a certain minimum income is a much more complicated situation. Having The government step in and take vast amounts of wealth from some people in order to hand it to one or two people specifically to make them rich is almost certainly going to lead to ruin.) Taxes are necessary. Not good, but necessary, and I have no hesitation paying a reasonable amount of taxes to provide for necessary functions of government. But, if people are being taxed specifically to make some noble rich then it is both immoral and will lead to problems for society. Wealth redistribution for the purpose of making some wealthy is tantamount to theft, just government authorized. There are some examples of this that have been in the news lately from Afghanistan were public lands are simply handed over to friends of high government officials either completely free or for a pittance. To summarize and be completly clear: In the context of being done specifically to make a person or small priveleged group wealthy, taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft are effectively the same. This was a pattern that is mostly seen in ancient feudalisms or some modern third world countries. In the case of being done in an attempt to legitimately improve society then taxes, wealth redistribution, and theft are three very different things.