Absolutely wrong. My viewpoint is the MOST empathetic, loving and kind. Here is why.
What is better for a person at the bottom of the economic ladder who wants to pursue actual values---happiness and prosperity---instead of simply languishing?
The answer is a free market and a booming, robust economy.
What about the ones who languish? You literally can't help them anyway. Somebody who just lives on the dole and stays there is NOT going to have a happy life, no matter how hard you try to help them.
Therefore, as a society, we should always choose freedom and the concommitant prosperity over egalitarianism, which just sacrifices those pursuing values to those who are helplessly languishing.
Also I'm all for artists, dreamers and English professors--that's why I disjuncted "willing to gamble." Which is quite reasonable if you're young and possibly even reasonable when you're 42, poor, and have a family---which is why I didn't pass judgement on this specific man.