It's immoral to be rich

Being extremely wealthy is impossible to justify in a world containing deprivation. There is a lot of public discussion about inequality, but there seems to be far less talk about just how patently shameful it is to be rich. There are plenty of people on this earth who die because they cannot afford to pay for medical care. There are elderly people who become homeless because they cannot afford rent. There are children living on streets, there are mothers who can’t afford diapers for their babies. And all of it could be ameliorated if people who had lots of money simply gave those other people their money. It’s deeply shameful to be rich. It’s not a morally defensible thing to be rich. 

• White families in America have 16 times as much wealth on average as black families. This is indisputably because of slavery, which was very recent.
• Larry Ellison of Oracle bought the island of Lanai. It’s kind of extraordinary that a single human being can just own the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, but that’s what concentrated wealth leads to.
• Every dollar you have is a dollar you’re not giving to somebody else, the decision to retain wealth is a decision to deprive others.
• It is sometimes claimed that CEOs get paid too much, or that the super-wealthy do not pay enough in taxes. There is no problem in CEOs getting paid as much as the company decides to pay them. And taxes are certainly a tyrannical form of legalized theft. But the question is of the morality of their retaining wealth after it is given to them.
• The process by which those rich people attained their wealth is totally consensual. People on the right often defend wealth along these lines. I earned it, therefore it’s not unfair for me to have it. But the question is that regardless of how you have earned it, to what degree you are morally permitted to retain it? 
• It’s one thing to argue that you got rich legitimately. It’s another to explain why you feel justified in spending your wealth upon houses and sculptures rather than helping some struggling people. There may be nothing unseemly about the process by which a basketball player earns his millions. But there’s certainly something unseemly about his having those millions. 
• If the problem of inequality is systemic, and rich people do not really make choices but pursue their class interests, then asking them whether it is moral for wealthy people to retain their wealth is irrelevant and incoherent. 
• Giving away wealth in the form of charity is actually bad, because it allows capitalism to look superficially generous without actually altering the balance of power in the society. “The worst slave owners were those who were kind to their slaves, because they prevented the core of the system from being realized by those who suffered from it,” as Oscar Wilde ludicrously put it.
• Moral duty becomes greater the more wealth you have. The super-rich, the infamous millionaires and billionaires, are constantly squandering resources that could be used to create wonderful and humane things. If you’re a billionaire, you could literally open a hospital and make it free. You could help make sure no child ever had to go without lunch.
• Everyone who earns anything beyond is obligated to give away the excess in its entirety. The refusal to do so means intentionally allowing others to suffer, a statement which is true regardless of whether you “earned” or “deserved” the income you were originally given. 
• Wealthy people do give away money often in piecemeal and self-interested and foolish ways. They’ll donate to colleges with huge endowments to get needless buildings built and named after them. David Geffen will pay to open a school for the children of wealthy. Mark Zuckerberg will squander millions of dollars trying to fix Newark’s schools by hiring $1000-a-day-consultants. Brad Pitt will try to build homes for Katrina victims in New Orleans, but will insist that they’re architecturally cutting-edge and funky looking, instead of just trying to make as many simple houses as possible. Just as the rich can’t be trusted to spend their money well generally, they’re colossally terrible at giving it away. This is because so much is about self-aggrandizement, and “philanthropy” is far more about the donor than the donee. 
• If you’re a multi-billionaire, giving away $1 billion is morally meaningless and you’re still incredibly wealthy, and thus still harming many people through your retention of wealth. You have to get rid of all of it, beyond the maximum moral income. 

It is not justifiable to retain vast wealth. This is because that wealth has the potential to help people who are suffering, and by not helping them you are letting them suffer. It does not make a difference whether you earned the vast wealth. The point is that you have it. We should acknowledge that it is immoral to be rich. 

Read the source article

I don’t hate capitalism, I just hate rich people.

If you are an egalitarian, how come you are so rich - GA Cohen 

Rich do not deserve their wealth - Robert Nozick 

Due process of law

It is axiomatic in a democratic society that no one should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, i.e. to be given a chance to be heard and present a case according to the rules set forth by the authorities before any action can be taken. Failing this, any action of the government to take one’s life, liberty or property is void and of no effect. Due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. It is a course of formal proceedings carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles that enables fair treatment through the normal judicial system. It is also a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual. Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it. 

• Due process guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
• When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law. 
• The law of due process generally evokes the right of an individual to be heard before the imposition of punishment or penalties by the government.
• Due process does not mean you have the right to be believed, just that you have the right to be heard.
• Due process in court is one thing. But in the court of public opinion, it is a much more fluid notion, entangling questions of what is fair, what is reasonable to believe, and what rings emotionally true.
• The due process of a court action is often a very complicated and lengthy affair, involving pretrial discovery, witnesses, and a judicial proceeding. But given the stakes of loss of life or liberty, that makes sense. 
• The due process depends on context. The hearing may be very summary or informal or requires a jury trial with a standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The due process depends on the value or importance of the deprivation, and to some extent on the likelihood that more process might change the outcome. In the criminal context, where the stakes are higher, the amount of process is greater.
• For everyone, due process connotes only procedural protections: the process due (e.g., notice, opportunity to be heard) before someone is deprived of something.
• It is an obligation owed only by the government. A private person does not owe “due process” to another private person.
• In the case of employees the due process would be minimal. And it is important to note that employee can waive their right to insist on due process by resigning from employment and may well waive any due process rights that the employee otherwise would have had.
• At bottom, due process is our protection against arbitrary governmental action and is triggered only when the government acts. It does not apply to the press or the court of public opinion, or to private employers.

Due process gives all people the basic right to receive “written notice and an opportunity to be heard” before government takes any steps to deprive them life, liberty, or property. The subjects gets opportunity to speak against the deprivation, i.e. to appear in front of a judge to explain why this deprivation should not occur and how the subjects are in the right, and the government should not be permitted to take your life, liberty, or property.