Mike Masnick was surprised to see commenters kvetch when Colin Hanks, son of Tom, raised a healthy sum to finance a documentary on Tower Records:

I was kind of surprised, because I don’t actually see anything wrong with anyone using such platforms, whether they’re rich and famous or some poor nobody just starting out. One of the nice things about a platform like Kickstarter is that beyond just being a system for fundraising, those who use it find that it’s a great way to really connect with an audience and fans. For a movie like this, that makes a lot of sense. It’s part of the marketing as well. And, honestly, this is getting some people to prepay for stuff. If Colin Hanks had found the money elsewhere (say, from his Dad) and then made the movie, and people went and paid $10/ticket to see it in a theater, would the same people be complaining that it was the rich people “taking money” from “lower and middle class people”? Also, the whole point of Kickstarter is that the people aren’t just giving away their money — they get something in return.
Part of me wonders if this is the same sort of way that people react when the little indie band they loved becomes super popular worldwide, where people seem to start to resent the band, as if they felt that the band was “their band” and couldn’t go out and find a wider audience.

I share Masnick’s take on this subject, but I am surprised that he is surprised. The moral intuition that leads one to believe that it is a bad thing when Colin Hanks uses Kickstarter as a platform to raise money (and interest and enthusiasm) for a film project informs much of the broader discomfort with a dynamic economy based on voluntary exchange. In this case, Colin Hanks is a stand-in for Wilt Chamberlain and Kickstarter is yet another institution that disturbs patterns.