>>I'm not describing revolution as a goal. It's a possible consequence.
>
>That's fine.
>
>I'm just asking questions about what is just and what is ethical, and how our actions and our expectations should take that into consideration.

Ethics is all fine when you catch your competitor doing something nasty that you can use to tarnish his image and cost him millions in advertising to bleach it clean. On the money front, however, ethics is a two-edged sword. Consider the sanctity of contract. It's selective. The under-the-counter contracts between that Goldman Sachs (and others) made with the Papandreou family and other such schemes by which many countries were turned into "failed states" are still to be honored, but the equally valid contracts between Cyprus banks and their investors, or General motors and their workers were overridden. So the standard is the double standard - and you worry about what would the ethical reaction to that be.

>On the other hand, there's you and John saying "I'm not fanning the flames, but if there is a violent revolution of the 99.5% against the 0.5%, they had it coming."

If they can find the 0,5%. The hungry and oppressed (with the appropriate number of morons, illiterates, personally honest by frantic when massed, the confused, the deluded, those understanding where this is going but missing few thousand fingers for the holes in the levee) will kill you and me, because we can be found and we don't speak as they do.