The first sentence is not an argument nor is it true. The next sentence follows it up with a non sequitur hypothetical.

Let's say his aging mother died and he continued to cash her Social Security checks for a year, to continue to pursue his dream, would you consider it unethical? The federal government certainly has the money, and he is tenaciously pursuing his dream.

Probably want to avoid comparing startups in Silicon Valley will starving serfs in feudal Europe. One is a choice, the other not so much.

I think you're replying to the straw man "Stealing from someone just because they can afford it is always unethical.", which is not what parent said.

I agree with you that there are situations in which it's ethical to steal from someone who can afford it, but what parent said was that the latter condition doesn't guarantee it to be automatically ethical, implying that grandparent's assertion that the theft was ethical because AOL could afford it was fallacious.

On the one hand, the starving serf living in crushing poverty doesn't have much opportunity to get out of serfdom.

On the other hand, an obviously talented young developer who is starving in Silicon Valley may need to take an internship that pays $80K+ per year.

I'm not seeing the parallels.

I am running a fever, so not really in a good state to make my point clearly/effectively, but inevitably we are all in this together, like it or not, and who benefits is largely a matter of what rules we put in place. Poor people are frequently legally disempowered and rich people are frequently the ones engineering the rules in their favor. The assumption that what the king has "belongs" to him rightfully often turns a blind eye to where it really came from.

Anyway, it is more complicated than the arguments I have been witnessing here today and I just regret that I am not in good shape to give adequate voice to the idea that society needs to come up with a more enlightened means to address ..the whole kit and kaboodle.