"But I think that the truth in my argument is that there is no correlation between the benefit of the common good and the intent of the wealthy person. While you say it doesn't matter, I think it does."
Intentions matter, but good intentions can lead to bad outcomes, thus it depends on the means and consequences.
Think: well-intended socialists who wish to centrally plan for an entire economy of 80 million people without using prices caused by the market. (i.e. Soviet Union, 70 years of inefficiency and high social costs imposed by a very authoritarian state).
Do the intentions of the wealthy matter? As I keep saying, it depends on the means and consequences of their exchange. To be clear, I've been saying that intentions Alone do not matter; the means and consequences do however. (see voluntary v. involuntary exchange part)."Money looks the same whether you earned it through labor or stole it from a child right? "
The source of the gain hinges on the consequences and means, which completely differ in both cases.
If you involuntarily extract money (means), you create a zero-sum exchange (consequence).
Trade (through labor or whatever):
If you voluntary exchange goods (one trading money, the other trading X), then you have a mutually beneficial exchange. (Because both parties value the good that they wish to trade for).
Money 'looks the same' superficially, but that doesn't matter without considering consequences and means.
s far as the common people thriving on the droppings of the rich I am unsure of its universal accuracy. If I eat an apple and throw the core in the woods I rest assured that some animal will probably get a nice meal out of it and feel relatively good about my action. However, if I change the oil in my car and throw the filter into the woods because I didn't feel like taking it to the recycling center I can pretty much assume that I did something shitty and selfish.
I have no idea how you imposing negligible negative externalities (i.e. polluting) somehow equate to the rich guy and common people thriving on droppings, which is another depiction that is completely inaccurate (too normative).