It seems to me that the poster views this belief favorably. For that, I will ponder how well the poor lived under the "nobles". At least, during the feudal time

It seems to me that the poster views this belief favorably. For that, I will ponder how well the poor lived under the "nobles". At least, during the feudal times the offer of protection from the feuding lords and sharing of the chateau's cellars during lean times meant something. This quotation from the article > In ethical discussion, the term is sometimes[citation needed] used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. Recently, it has been used to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or exceed minimal standards of decency. lays bare the naivete of people who in these days think it is better to solicit the sympathies of our betters. At it's core, "one must share one's bounty with the rest of the group" or "the group provides implicit insurance to other members of the group" only "work" among small groups of relative equals who can monitor each other. Delegation of monitoring, distance between the helper and recipient, and the ability to get by without effort in complicated social insurance schemes destroy everything about small group members' ability to mutually insure each other with a foundation of trust. Is it because the phenomenon of such complicated social insurance schemes leading to shrinking total resources and formation of a permanent group of recipients has become visible that people who think redistribution is the solution to all problems are now trying to cast it as something the very few very rich ought to follow in the footsteps of feudal lords? Or is it a way to formalize the relationship whereby a bazillionaire can ensure loyal support so long as the lifestyles of journalists and activists are well supported?