Right livelihood - how many cutouts is enough?

Slaughtering an animal for meat or a person for wealth is not right livelihood, nor is it right to pay someone else to do so. So far, so good. Modern corporations allow individuals to amass more wealth and power than Genghis Khan while not having to lead the charge from up front. It's easy and direct enough to link Genghis Khan to the invasion of Eurasia, but it's nearly impossible to link a billionaire to a war in Iraq or Congo, though it is common knowledge that the modern economic system since colonial times promotes wars in natural resource rich parts of the world all the time for economic gain. The billionaire beneficiary is often on a yacht thousands of miles away, while ordering the war through middle men, board room decisions, corporate interests, political lobbyists and hedge funds. Such specifically designed to be tenuous connections to the scene of the violence allow the shot caller to even forget there's violence. Kind of like how when people pick up shrink wrapped meat in a supermarket it's a very different sterile experience from going out into the backyard with a cleaver and a cackling hen and returning with bloody hands. Even in his time the Buddha did not criticize wars or say being a king isn't right livelihood. So where's the line in the sand, how many intermediaries does it take to make the wrong right?