And yet willing to put up such a fight to prevent other people -- poorer people -- from having an enjoyment entitled to them by law.
I'm having a hard time framing this in such a way that doesn't make Khosla seem phenomenally greedy.
I really don't understand.
There is a thing called the 'principle of double effect' (thought up by Thomas Aquinas back in the 13th century; it's not a new thing) that's incredibly important to understanding the world around us - nothing we do has a single, isolated effect. Ever. There are always several causes for things, and many effects. Picking one and assuming that was the reason, or even just the most important reason, is wrong. In this case it's reasonable to think Khosla closed access to the beach for several reasons, and that had several effects, one of which was preventing public access which is why it ended up in court.
What he probably wanted was to prevent [...] founders
'accidentally' meeting him when he was at home, and so on.
I think the same thing about Khosla's beach access - I feel bad if he's having problems, but he knew the beach access was there when he brought the property.
Except it's the opposite. People had public access, then he bought it, then he tried to unlawfully take away public access. If he doesn't want people on his property, he shouldn't have bought property that has a preexisting public easement.
The truly "vast" networth starts at above $10 billion. At that point you are making $100,000 every waking hour or more.
"Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire."