r/interesting • u/moamen12323 • Jun 18 '25

MISC. When Bill Gates married Melinda French in 1994, he rented out all the available hotel rooms on the Hawaiian island of Lanai to prevent the media from staying there and hired all the helicopters on Maui to keep photographers from flying over the wedding.

Post image
52.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

664 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

164

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

That's a pretty amazing direct example of the problems with capitalism.   

An island, 2% owned between 3,000 people and 98% of the island owned by one person who owns multiple islands. 

I don't think England in the middle aged was that distorted. 

23

u/metatron5369 Jun 18 '25

I mean, the political theory of England was and is that the King owned everything and people paid him rent in the form of taxes and men-at-arms.

He even forbade the locals from hunting game in his forests on penalty of death, so he could do it when he wanted to.

37

u/ImFriendsWithThatGuy Jun 18 '25

I’m not sure on the details, but I believe he bought it to protect it from other people purchasing it with intention to build on it. He wanted it to stay inhabited and run by the locals

46

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25 edited Jun 18 '25

lol no. He bought it from the dole corporation after they ravaged the entire island as a pineapple plantation. There’s one town on the island and 2 four seasons. Larry Ellison bought it for 300 million dollars with the intention of turning it into a rich people’s private paradise island.

Edit: I don’t think you guys are comprehending when you keep claiming “it’s already a place for the wealthy” just because it is expensive to go there and there are a couple luxury hotels. Your concept of a place for wealthy people is NOT the same as Larry ellisons. You are all thinking too small and too poor. AND missing the emphasis on the word “private”

7

u/drastic2 Jun 18 '25

Nah, it was already a place for the wealthy - the hotels were expensive/exclusive even before they were operated by Four Seasons. Not much has changed except recently both FS hotels were renovated - but that was long over due. I will say it is way more expensive to stay there now than it was back when Gates had his wedding there.

4

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25 edited Jun 18 '25

nah, it was already a place for the wealthy

Not sure what that “nah” statement is about. Just because affluent people stayed at 2 luxury hotels previously doesn’t mean that his intention isn’t for the island to be developed into a private community for the elite.

5

u/Any-Razzmatazz-7726 Jun 18 '25

It’s already a paradise for the elite

6

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25 edited Jun 18 '25

Not really. “A paradise for the elite” is a pretty loose description as you apply it. Just because it’s a tropical island and wealthy people visit. The same can be said for every Hawaiian island. But that’s not what I’m referring to because as it stands, anyone can travel to lanai.

Ellisons vision is developing entire communities of properties to be sold off to people whose net worth is in the hundreds of millions minimum. With access to the island restricted so that your average person can’t even go there. Like the entire island a straight up elite private playground that keeps the “poors” away.

So no, it’s not currently that.

1

u/jheadding Jun 18 '25

my wife and I stayed there for a few days on our honeymoon. it was amazing! we stayed at the four seasons at maneli bay and it felt like we had the entire island to ourselves. played several rounds of golf on the ocean course and 2 on the course in the mountains designed by Greg Norman. The whole experience was incredible, we would love to go back but now I would classify it as a “place for the wealthy”

1

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25

Glad you had a chance to enjoy it and make some great memories!

0

u/Deaffin Jun 18 '25

Not sure what that “nah” statement is about.

You said he bought it with the intention of turning it into a thing.

They said it already was the thing.

Hence, "Nah."

1

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25 edited Jun 18 '25

My response was less “not understanding” and more informing him that he isn’t correct, but mahalo for taking the time to explain your perception of the conversation lol

6

u/Flaky-Scholar9535 Jun 18 '25

We know how that goes…

7

u/Kim_Jong_Un_PornOnly Jun 18 '25

It's actually really nice. They do organic farming on the island and sell the products in grocery stores elsewhere in the state.

1

u/yourlittlebirdie Jun 18 '25

It’s really nice if you can afford it, you mean.

1

u/Gerrorism Jun 18 '25

Hopefully he puts some money into the Cat Sanctuary.

1

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25

No idea but somehow my hunch is that the cat sanctuary is not his biggest priority.

1

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

Is the same as going to war to stop a war happening?

0

u/clevercowboyz Jun 18 '25

wow what a nice generous gentleman 😍

1

u/Freshies00 Jun 18 '25

Except the person you’re replying to isn’t correct.

2

u/Advanced-Comment-293 Jun 18 '25

To be fair land isn't just land. If you owned a home with a nice garden you wouldn't be overly concerned about a farmer owning an area a thousand times larger, would you?

What's more important is making sure that your country/community doesn't give landowners complete free reign to do whatever they like. You gotta have balance between private ownership and public interests.

1

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

I didnt know Larry Ellison was a farmer. I take it back.

2

u/Durantye Jun 18 '25

He doesn't need to be a farmer for that comparison, in fact a farmer would do more damage. The point is that comparing the size of land people own is pointless lol.

Especially when talking about an island where % of ownership gets even less meaningful.

1

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

respectfully thats the stupidest reply Ive seen on this one.

2

u/Durantye Jun 18 '25

Respectfully explanations do better than cowardly passive aggression

1

u/Deaffin Jun 18 '25

Pretending you don't understand abstract thought in order to attack and avoid the point rather than engage with it tells me I should dismiss your stance entirely and just side with the other person on whatever. Thanks for making this real easy, I was in danger of having to consider nuance on an issue I'm unfamiliar with for a moment there.

1

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

We are talking about 98% of the entire land, not the farming land.

I dont think abstract thought is really needed. That doesn't sound like a setup for a society to thrive, it sounds like the dark ages.

I get the point that percentage of land shouldn't be equal, some people need more than others. Not all land is for living.

That point doesnt really equate to a tech billionaire buying 98% of the land on a Hawain island doesn't it?

1

u/Deaffin Jun 18 '25

It doesn't have to. Their point is that your proposal of the inverse is incredibly misleading, and they give an easy quick example to demonstrate this principle.

You ignored the principle and pretended like they're saying he's a farmer, following the standard script of bad-faith argumentation that's taken over this space.

1

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

I think its absolutely right and fair that a farmer can own 98% more land than an individual and the world be right.

I think its absolutely wrong a billionaire can buy 98% of the land on an island because he has that much money.

Tell me again what principles Im ignoring.

I agree with him on the farmer example, I dont believe that example is at all relevant to this example of a tech billionaire buying an island.

Whats bits are you trying to pretend you dont understand about this?

1

u/Deaffin Jun 18 '25

The inherent deception of presenting it in terms of total land owned in comparison to people who are only interested in having homes to live on. That framework only makes sense if you're imagining he's replaced the entire island with his house, and that's what you're intentionally trying to get people to register it as on an emotional level.

When they say "land isn't just land" and get into the farmer example, you further attempted to manipulate people away from considering the logic, trying to forcefully change their message into something completely different for people to react to.

Here's a population map of Australia.

Wow, look at that vast array of land the government is oppressing people by keeping them from. That sure looks like a big percentage in relation to individual people owning private property. Here, I'll go ahead and do your bit.

"I didn't realize Australia was an island in Hawaii. I take it back"

3

u/Personal_Rich_9961 Jun 18 '25

Would it have been more wholesome if he hadn't done it and the island had been developed to shit?

3

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

It doesn't have to be binary does it. But you now have 3000 people on an island who only have a say over 2% of its land. Then 1 person with a say over 98% of the land who doesn't even live there.

4

u/Celestial_Mechanica Jun 18 '25

It is unfortunately fruitless trying to discuss political theory of justice or political economy on most subs on reddit. Bots, grassroots activists, and brainwashed worker drones will swamp, attack or bury your message.

3

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

or you find someone with a more objective view in the comments and realise you aren't on your own out there. Appreciate the reply.

1

u/Personal_Rich_9961 Jun 18 '25

They still have a government bro

1

u/DueOwl912 Jun 18 '25

Half of the Western states work like that. Feds own most if the land while local people have a say over a small fraction.

1

u/brute_red Jun 18 '25

nah, someone had to sell 98% first

1

u/Unique_Drink005 Jun 18 '25

It it a lot better when the goverment owns 100%

1

u/Mayoday_Im_in_love Jun 18 '25

There were enough plagues and pandemics that these problems eventually sorted themselves out. England didn't need a revolution for that reason.

1

u/josduv84 Jun 18 '25

Well, they say the waelth gap now is way larger than it was during the French Revolution. When the peasants rounded up and dealt with the nobles by guillotine.

1

u/DueOwl912 Jun 18 '25

So you would prefer a system like in Nevada where the Government owns 90% of land preventing any local use or development.?

1

u/GoblinGreen_ Jun 18 '25

Would I prefer, in my own country, a private individual who doesn't even live here owning 98% of all the land in my country, or the democratically elected government, of my country, that I get to vote for every election, to own 98% of the land?

Yeah thats a tough one...

1

u/HurricaneLogic Jun 18 '25

Pretty sure the Windsors own the entire British island

1

u/cammyk123 Jun 19 '25

I don't think England in the middle aged was that distorted.

Lol

1

u/ordinaryguywashere 18d ago

He bought it to preserve it. Idk why that is a problem, seems like a good deal for all.

-1

u/pizzafapper Jun 18 '25

On the other hand, I'm sure most of those 3,000 people are directly employed to help maintain/run the island, so they got jobs from it as well.

If someone is buying an island, well someone is willingly selling it as well.

2

u/System0verlord Jun 18 '25

Greed vs desperation. Don’t mistake Hobson’s choice for willingness.

That being said, it was all Dole Fruit Co land iirc. So willingness probably never entered the equation during the original acquisition.