I think one could make a case that the disconnect is even more fundamental than that. It's a conflict between people who (for the most part, I presume) prefer c

I think one could make a case that the disconnect is even more fundamental than that. It's a conflict between people who (for the most part, I presume) prefer consequentialist ethics, and people who prefer deontological ethics. If we take, for the sake of argument, (edit: what I'm guessing is) your unstated major premise of a deontological approach to ethics, then yes, you're absolutely right, no amount of positive economic outcome could possibly justify forcibly depriving people of their rightful property, because the ends never justify the means. However, for the sake of keeping the discussion sane, I'd argue it's important to come out and say that this is where you're coming from, rather than just saying that "this misses the fundamental issue." Because, to someone who prefers almost any other general approach to ethics, it is absolutely central to the fundamental issue. And you can't really just dismiss all those other ways of thinking by just ignoring them.