That's a very interesting reading of the sentence. First, "violence has been necessary to ensure the redistribution of wealth" is generally the violence of rev

That's a very interesting reading of the sentence. First, "violence has been necessary to ensure the redistribution of wealth" is generally the violence of revolutions and empire collapses, not wars and empire building; Second, "A is neccessary to get B" does not imply "A is neccesary", you can't make that simplification. It can (and often does) mean "we won't or shouldn't get B, because these ends don't justify the neccessary means". Third, this does not imply "justifying" anything, it's a factual observation about events in the past, not a value judgement. "is" vs "ought". Blaming the messenger is counterproductive; if you think that the statement is not true (I think it's not entirely solid, but need more review before asserting anything strongly), then it's appropriate to discuss why it's not true, but the fact that the conclusion is unpleasant and yucky does not discredit the argument in any way. Fourth, a Stanford professor writing a book does not imply any endorsement by Stanford, making this attribution is not appropriate (the HN headline also makes this attribution, but the original article does not) - professors are supposed to have academic freedom and publish their individual opinions, no matter what the instutition in aggregate thinks.