I think the article implies - but does not state it explicitly, unfortunately - that the real problem is not that there are individuals with massive wealth or a

I think the article implies - but does not state it explicitly, unfortunately - that the real problem is not that there are individuals with massive wealth or assets (that are almost impossible to get due to their limited availability, eg. land - google "leasehold" if you are not "astonished by the fact that rich people buy London real estate"), but rather that the source of their wealth is simply that they were born into it. A successful startup or enterpreneur achieves wealth because they create something that people want and are willing to pay for, in most cases on a non-zero sum playing field. And also if company A does X, and company B also tries to do X, there is a healthy competition in which there is usually a winning strategy for both companies. If there isn't, it is usually called a monopoly which is at least attempted to be limited by the law. In the case of nobility, the playing field is so much unlevel that this gives them "unjust" advantages from the start. Even worse, they did not "earn" their rights by creating something new that has value, for example. And nobody calls owning the bottom of a river a monopoly, not even when they get paid by simply allowing a bridge to be built over it (does this really not sound absurd to you?). The next question one could ask is if there is a better solution to this injustice. At this point in time, we already know several attempts at the solution, most of which failed spectacularly.