the article is flawed because it neglects the idea that if the rich person didnt exist (or got beat to death instead of just beat up) then the remainder of the beerdrinkers at the table would have access to a greater proportion of the economy/market, make more money, pay more tax themselves, and thereby be able to afford their own damn beer.
it doesnt matter who owns the economy - it only matters that the economy produces goods and services.
Nope. The analogy holds because the beer drinker didn't die, he simply chose not to participate in drinking anymore. There are at least a half-dozen ways one of "the rich" can legally choose not to participate anymore.