The usual bizarre thought processes:
> So when I hear people saying that economic inequality is bad and should be eliminated, I feel rather like a wild animal overhearing a conversation between hunters. [...] They don't even seem clear whether they want to kill me or not.
Doesn't consider the obvious conclusion: they want to improve society to be more egalitarian. The opposite of killing/hurting anyone: no longer needing police/military to maintain a world based on radical inequality. (Police to ensure wage-slaves obey bosses for food/shelter tokens; military to ensure other countries don't build more successful societies which cause everyone to question the status quo.)
His sentiment apparently is sincere. Despite having government protecting the wealthy [1], with police and military, privileged people often fear that the dominated will beat them up. But in reality, it is the dominated who must fear armed men daily.
> You can't end economic inequality without preventing people from getting rich, and you can't do that without preventing them from starting startups.
Startup startup startup. Half the time, "startup" is the small-business boss's pet magic word to justify low wages.
An improved world can obviously have "startups"; if that means a team of people supported to automate away drudge work, research immortality drugs, etc. Note that our current system doesn't do this: nowadays, technology means we work more hours, not less. [2]
> Variation in productivity is far from the only source of economic inequality
Many highly productive people would happily work with compensation equal to everyone else. Was Einstein or Chomsky driven by the profit motive, for their greatest accomplishments? Many enormously "productive" people find it insulting to be considered animals doing it for material rewards.
To do well in a market, you must get money from those with money. Such a system predictably caters to those with more power. In contrast, many highly productive people rather focus their energy on those with no money nor power to compensate them. (Though there are startups which find ways to siphon money from government/funders for it, in return for surveillance or ensuring those in poverty remain in a handout-system...)
No, when you're successful, you need to defend it from higher-productive competition by building a "moat" [3]. This isn't new; 19th century economist Friedrich List called it "kicking away the ladder". The wealthy obviously try to do this.
[1] Adam Smith: "Till there be property there can be no government, the very end of which is to secure wealth, and to defend the rich from the poor.")
[2] Anyway, real tech advances come from the government sector: taxpayers. Then it's handed to private power to reap the profit. http://marianamazzucato.com/the-entrepreneurial-state/
[3] YC's leadership literally look for a "moat". https://www.quora.com/How-does-YCombinator-affect-the-succes...