When I actually try to think about it - I’m not sure I have a robust understanding of what these people are like.
Celebrities? Sure.
Trust fund slackers? Yep.
Superclass...Maybe?
Edit: not suggesting that celebrities are part of the superclass but that I understand the general lifestyle associated with celebrities (I was previously employed in the film industry). On the other hand, I really don’t understand the lifestyle and social environment of this ‘superclass’. Perhaps, I simply lack the imagination to conceptualize what it would be like to possess a billion dollars. Perhaps, it’s just too divorced from my own reality.
"Oligarchs": people who made their money by sweeping up ownership of the privatised companies after the USSR. Saudi crown princes. Politicians from the more corrupt states. Basically the opposite of celebrities.
Most celebrities aren't. Maybe a handful, but having a net worth of say $25M is a drop in the bucket compared to 11/12 figure individuals- the marginal advantages at that point must be very abstract.
When you approach billionaire money probably ceases to exist in any tangible sense. You could afford literally any apex product of the entire human species to the extent that you could experience it subjectively.
At that point it starts to become about power.
This is probably made all the more true by the fact that we don't live in anything approaching a libertarian/voluntarist world. Getting that rich means you are now a 'player' among other power players whether you like it or not, and other power players don't always play fair.
Basically you probably are forced to become some kind of oligarch or politician or give some of your money away to stay below a certain threshold.
But I've never been up there so I don't really know. I'm only observing from afar.
I’ve always felt that the least convincing arguments (for me) in favor of libertarianism have come from the already rich and powerful. I’m sympathetic to many libertarian ideas; however, when an already powerful person argues for them I can’t shake the feeling that they simply want me to voluntarily give up governmental structures that are - probably - the most significant form of power I have access to (even if they are collectively possessed).
This would seem to sync with the <it’s not wealth but power> alignment of the superclass.
A key problem with libertarian thought is the notion that it is possible to erect a hard firewall between economic wealth and the power of the state (or any other entity or combination of them) to initiate force.
In practice as long as the state (or any other force wielder) and economic actors exist in the same universe the latter can use money or deception to influence the former. Money can be used to amplify deception through intelligence tradecraft.
This means that large enough concentrations of wealth inevitably tend to mutate into political power a.k.a. the power to initiate force.
Rand is probably the worst offender when it comes to outright denying this and refusing to examine its implications.
Celebrities? Sure. Trust fund slackers? Yep.
Superclass...Maybe?
Edit: not suggesting that celebrities are part of the superclass but that I understand the general lifestyle associated with celebrities (I was previously employed in the film industry). On the other hand, I really don’t understand the lifestyle and social environment of this ‘superclass’. Perhaps, I simply lack the imagination to conceptualize what it would be like to possess a billion dollars. Perhaps, it’s just too divorced from my own reality.