Contrary to popular belief, this is true about many rich people. Rich people, in general, are not sitting on piles of cash or extremely liquid assets that could simply be "taken" from them with no impact on anyone else. Taking away businesses, taking away capital, taking away their ability to capitalize on the human networks they've formed in some industry turns out to hurt the body politic as well. It's why none of the large-scale efforts to confiscate wealth that have happened in the real world (most recently Venezuela for one example) ever seem to be going so well five or ten years later, once the first party has ended... removing capital from the people who know how to utilize it is not exactly a great deal for society.

Yes, "rich" people can get there "unfairly", but it turns out "just take it from them" is really a stupid idea.

So as to not fit too clearly into a "capitalist" mold, note this line of argumentation argues that such rich people shouldn't be able to simply pass this wealth down to their children, unless perhaps their children demonstrate similar facility with using it to their and society's mutual benefit. (Legalizing that would be tricky as well, but at least conceptually it could be argued.)

> Yes, "rich" people can get there "unfairly", but it turns out "just take it from them" is really a stupid idea.

Who said "just take it from him?" I certainly didn't. I don't know the complexities of the case, the law, etc.

I'm just surprised people rally around this guy like he's a common man sticking it to those rich plutocrats. When, in fact, it kind of sounds like the exact opposite.

Also: He doesn't have "it." If anything, the argument would be that he should be prevented from creating an economic disaster just so he can jump from "pretty damn wealthy" to "unbelievably wealthy."