I'm sorry if I'm not on the same language level as you, I needed to learn it in addition to my native one first. I promise you I'm more eloquent in my native language. ;)
You might have missed the point of my previous message, but it's okay since I don't have trust in my language skills that much to suspect a problem with your reception. I accept it can be a problem with my emission instead.
I use extreme examples as abstract ideas. I try to consider an idea in its extreme first, to assess if it's an idea worth considering. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. I don't use this technique because I'm unable to imagine anything that can be put in between -- I can, but thinking in extremes for me is easier.
I agree that the example of "global wealth redistribution" is extreme. But that was the point: to show that this extreme idea is ridiculous, as an extreme. But if we want to consider this idea in not an extreme way, as a "leveled" idea as you've said it, then my point was that this is NOT different at all from the rich guy example.
If you have a group of people (a state) with some wealth, and you want to choose that wealth stays inside the group, this is not at all different than the rich guy wanting the wealth to stay inside the family. For anyone outside of this group (e.g. from someone in Africa), your group is just another, but a higher level, rich guy. And I think it's very telling that you oppose other rich guys, but you want to stay a part of a rich guy yourself, because this is also how a rich guy behaves: other rich guys want to fight other rich guys too!
I see your arguments as "I want their money", disguised as "help the poor with their money". For me it seems that you don't want to help the poor, because you still want first to choose who is poor, and who isn't. So it's not about helping the poor, it's about choosing who YOU want to help. You choose that the poor in "your family" are more important than the poor outside of it. This is exactly how a rich guy behaves. Also you say that rich people don't have rights to their money, but the question is why YOU want to have the right to decide where their money should go. Because you pay taxes?
And your question, "what is natural about people who want to exploit", then well, this is with humanity from day zero, people with clubs exploited people without clubs, so I guess that would be a definition of the word "natural". It's not to say that "natural" means "a good way to do things", rather "natural" as average, it always been that way, etc.
For some reason you think you're on higher moral standing with your ideas, but I can assure you, I don't see it this way.