This sounds more akin to a discussion about Oligarchs after the collapse of the Soviet Union than a discussion about an American CEO in California.
Kind of eerie, even if you didn't intend it to sound that way.
> sounds like a HUGE safety problem for him AND his family.
You watch too many action movies. No one's going to spend the months of background checks and negotiation and tens of millions of dollars it would take to buy a mansion next to Zuckerthing's just to kidnap him or something.
The threat to rich people are from career criminals, not other rich people.
You think that I'm joking about Zuckerberg being a poor comparison to those specific oligarchs?
I mean this unrhetorically, what part of my comment could you possibly misinterpret so horribly?
A wealthy individual (WI) coming to his neighbors.
WI: "I'm worried your homes might be bought by individuals that affect my privacy, I know you don't intend to move, so let's make a deal that you can still live here and pay rent."
Neighbors: "Ok"
Random YC Comment: "(WI) left them in their homes, rather than reneging on his deal and casting them out of their familial homes to the street."
----
A Feudal Lord (FL) dies and his heir receives the fiefdom.
FL: "You are now my serfs and I've decided you may continue to live here and pay me a percentage of the crop yield, I am a generous lord."
Serf: "OK, m'lord"
Random YC Comment: "(FL) left the peasants in their huts like the generous lord he is."
---
A state industry has been privatized and is now owned by an Oligarch, to include the housing provided to the workers.
Oligarch: "Party land now my land, you may continue to live and work here to provide me profit, I am a generous businessman."
Worker: "ХОРОШО"
Random YC Comment: "The Oligarch left the workers in their housing, as long as it still provided him a profit."
They were offered a lease agreement, and they accepted this offer. They were not "left" there.
The idea that capitalism guarantees liberty is dangerous and absurd.