The case against this here is fascinating. It’s basically a bunch of people who will likely never be able to afford their own beaches cheering on a billionaire as he takes the beach they currently have access to away from them because “freedom.” Yeah Mr Khosla, you take my beach! Wooo! You’re right, I shouldnt be allowed on there, I am the rif-raf after all.
This is basically the problem in a nutshell: people voting against their own interests because one day they may be rich (they won’t though, probably, because if everyone was rich nobody would be) and when they get there they want their own beach too. So they give their beach away to the wealthiest, and now nobody but Vinod has a beach. If instead they just agreed to share the beach they’d all have it now, but of course that’s un-American, apparently.
This is basically the problem in a nutshell: people voting against their own interests because one day they may be rich (they won’t though, probably, because if everyone was rich nobody would be) and when they get there they want their own beach too. So they give their beach away to the wealthiest, and now nobody but Vinod has a beach. If instead they just agreed to share the beach they’d all have it now, but of course that’s un-American, apparently.