It seems like an appeal to certain billionaires to be more audacious and inventive when it comes to their philanthropic and prosocial pursuits. He puts particul

It seems like an appeal to certain billionaires to be more audacious and inventive when it comes to their philanthropic and prosocial pursuits. He puts particular emphasis on educational institutions, alluding to a higher purpose than simply donating more millions into the bloated endowment industry. Which tends to be resistant to large scale innovation within its own sphere (MOOCs are a great idea, but they don't seem to have bootstrapped into actual institutions on their own standing like they might have). It doesn't seem like he's advocating for new special powers for a new special in-group so much as waxing thoughtfully about what better to do with what they already have. It's easy enough to be cynical about his motivations. Maybe the distinction of being a "natural aristocrat" is merely self-serving and conceited. But we have aristocrats whether we like it or not. Perhaps a subset of the modern aristocracy might be more naturally aligned with his idealistic notions, and thus heed a calling to transformatively serve the public out of which they rose. I personally can forgive a bit of hubris if it is wielded responsibly and aimed at lofty, altruistic goals (because I'm a total sucker for that kind of rhetoric).