It's not just an unpopular opinion, it also shows an utter lack of critical thinking.
Do those with more resources owe them to chance, or did they do actual work?
Of those who worked for more resources, how did they achieve those resources? Are those ways actually in any way beneficial to society at large, or are they not replicable across wide swaths? Or are they possibly deliberately not beneficial to the country, but to those with resources?
Is it possible that growing wealth is easier if you already have access to wealth, merely by having that access?
Why do you think people with more resources actually know what they are doing? There is plentiful evidence to the contrary. (See e.g. Enron)
There is nothing inherent in a free market that means people with more resources are somehow more qualified to lead a country. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but if you'd like to make that point, you'll need to go well beyond a simple declaration of faith.
Do those with more resources owe them to chance, or did they do actual work?
Of those who worked for more resources, how did they achieve those resources? Are those ways actually in any way beneficial to society at large, or are they not replicable across wide swaths? Or are they possibly deliberately not beneficial to the country, but to those with resources?
Is it possible that growing wealth is easier if you already have access to wealth, merely by having that access?
Why do you think people with more resources actually know what they are doing? There is plentiful evidence to the contrary. (See e.g. Enron)
There is nothing inherent in a free market that means people with more resources are somehow more qualified to lead a country. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but if you'd like to make that point, you'll need to go well beyond a simple declaration of faith.