He's definitely right about problems. The state has too much power, and it abuses it to curtail the liberties of its citizens and enforce a crony-capitalist structure. But his solutions are wrong, and furthermore, beyond small critiques of his policies, I take broad issue with his vision. The world which he imagines - a world in which everyone is more or less equal, with some a little richer but not too much so, is not one in which I want to live. He also seems to enumerate the many wrongs of state force, then conveniently omit the sort of force that would be necessary to seize all this property. He mentions that all land would be held in common - this wouldn't just be taking the wealth of a few billionaires and giving everyone a few extra bucks. I am glad we do not live in such as society, and hope America will never head in such a direction.

Edit: I cannot reply to comments on this thread for some reason, so I will reply to 'uxcolumbo's response here. You ask why, say, $100m is not enough. Perhaps it is - it's probably enough for most of the things I could think to do, though not all. That said, the article implies that very rich people would have much less than $100m. And finally, I don't believe it's moral to cap wealth. It's a poor attempt to address the symptom rather than the disease - taking away their wealth won't fix it. Perhaps under a government with less corruption it would be difficult or impossible to amass the levels of wealth we see today, and I'd have no issues with that occurring under those circumstances.