> if the diminishing utility axiom were true we could start redistributing now, but one would predict the money owners would be against it. If something has di

> if the diminishing utility axiom were true we could start redistributing now, but one would predict the money owners would be against it. If something has diminishing *marginal* utility if doesn't follow that a third party has a right to seize it(property rights, different/tangential topic). Therefore this: > It's proof by contradiction - everyone knows money is political power. Is an inconsequential conclusion.