That is a rather childish spiteful and envious logic masquerading as virtue. It is essentially saying "Because they have more than me (I want it and they have it therefore they stole it), it is fair that both of us will be hit by a train?"
Regardless of the views on fairness (the very definition is so solipsistic that the Just World hypothesis means that they can rationalize anything bad as happening because the victims clearly deserved it.) it makes the entire matter moot because both are dead.
Eternal and robber barron are is also both bad assumptions. It assumes that those with more neccessarily have stolen it and produce nothing. Stealing and production aren't mutually exclusive either. If someone actually dominates resource consumption without any production "prememium" to justify it then there is always something to gain by killing them and taking their stuff. If said "eternal robber barron" actually turns out to have been a net positive from say their lengthy experience in managing considerable holdings any bandit or revolutionary will taste their winnings turning to ashes in their mouth.
It is a morally awkward lesson but very grounded in the real world as even when the defeated actually was an oppressor instead of just looked upon with envy the new owners who never ran one before will find running the "old machine" whether a farm, factory, oil well, or mine or isn't as simple as they thought - let alone an entire country. Production soon crashes and on top of that are the market effects. Unsurprisingly property owners don't want to trade with those who are still is stained in blood with seized property who declares it all righteous. Would you show up on a cannibal warlord's doorstep to buy a used car from him? No because he might eat you and add your junker to sell.
Regardless of the views on fairness (the very definition is so solipsistic that the Just World hypothesis means that they can rationalize anything bad as happening because the victims clearly deserved it.) it makes the entire matter moot because both are dead.
Eternal and robber barron are is also both bad assumptions. It assumes that those with more neccessarily have stolen it and produce nothing. Stealing and production aren't mutually exclusive either. If someone actually dominates resource consumption without any production "prememium" to justify it then there is always something to gain by killing them and taking their stuff. If said "eternal robber barron" actually turns out to have been a net positive from say their lengthy experience in managing considerable holdings any bandit or revolutionary will taste their winnings turning to ashes in their mouth.
It is a morally awkward lesson but very grounded in the real world as even when the defeated actually was an oppressor instead of just looked upon with envy the new owners who never ran one before will find running the "old machine" whether a farm, factory, oil well, or mine or isn't as simple as they thought - let alone an entire country. Production soon crashes and on top of that are the market effects. Unsurprisingly property owners don't want to trade with those who are still is stained in blood with seized property who declares it all righteous. Would you show up on a cannibal warlord's doorstep to buy a used car from him? No because he might eat you and add your junker to sell.