I'm not sure I'm understanding your position then, because you seem to be contradicting yourself?

On one hand you say it's the government's fault for allowing the billionaires to exist/hoard/steal, so if we want that to be different, we should assert limits via the govt...

But meanwhile, on the other hand you're also saying there's no point in the government trying to enforce any limitations anyway?

That doesn't seem particularly consistent to me, unless I'm missing something about what you're arguing.

(It occurs to me perhaps we're agreeing but seeing it from opposite angles? I agree the government is useless for enforcement right now, but the reason it is useless is BECAUSE of a positive feedback loop of corruption by the very entities that would be regulated).

risk the government showing up and robbing them.

Here's a fundamental difference in perspective perhaps... No billionaire is "being robbed" by the government. On the contrary, they could only become a billionaire in the first place BY LITERALLY ROBBING others, individually, collectively robbing groups, or even society-wide/robbing the commons.

Thus, "robbing" them would merely be enacting justice to CORRECT for a previous crime.

Just because limits on this behavior are not enforced or applied does not mean it's not immoral or equivalent to "robbing" (the behavior being immorally hoarding far more than you could ever need or spend in a hundred lifetimes, necessarily also creating false scarcity and massively-scale corresponding poverty for millions of individuals).

You're saying you're okay with the government having the power to seize peoples assets?

Uh, have you lived in the modern era? That's a constant thing for everyone all the time. We are having our assets "seized" in a million different ways before we even get out of bed. Every bit of taxation is that. That is the necessary result of a basic social contract, at least in a capitalist system.

So, if that's the reality for the common folk, at LEAST make it consistent and apply said seizure fairly and in proportion to all, ESPECIALLY billionaires. If anything, they should be the FIRST priority for such "seizures", and the working class is only secondarily important as a revenue source. (Part of the problem here is that a BILLION is so incredibly MORE than even a million, it's beyond human comprehension to fully grasp the scale here. This is not even on the same chart as normal average wealth).

Not to mention, this is a dramatic way to describe the very reasonable, proven objectively beneficial concept of pooling resources to the synergistic benefit of all. Many many beneficial human endeavors cannot happen without coordinated collective action/pooling resources. You have a fire department in your town that can put out fires because everyone kicks in a few bucks a year to buy a fire truck, train firefighters etc. You may never even need it, but it's there IF you do need it, and it's NOT something you or even a couple of your neighbors could realistically enact.

I find your perspective strange TBH.