Silicon Valley Billionaire Fails To Prevent Access To Public Beach (theguardian.com)

Robotron23 writes: Vinod Khosla, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, has lost his appeal to privatize Martins Beach -- a publicly-owned strip of coastline in California. Having previously fenced off the land in a bid to render the area private, Khosla has been ordered to restore access by a California court. Khosla had previously demanded the government pay him $30 million to reopen the gate to the beachfront. The law of California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the "mean high tide line." "The decision this week, affirming a lower court ruling, stems from a lawsuit filed by the Surfrider Foundation, a not-for-profit group that says the case could have broader implications for beach access across the U.S.," reports The Guardian.

Comments

They're liberal when it suits them

[elrous0]

And hardcore libertarians when someone dares ask them to share.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's Silicon Valley in a nutshell.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, liberal, libertarian, conservative or moderate, this guy is a billionaire.

He saw something he wanted, and tried to take it.

That is the way of things.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Dox the address so I can go shit on his backyard

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[alvinrod]

Reminds me of the controversy surrounding Zuckerberg building a wall around his estate in Hawaii and pissing off a lot of locals.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[ShanghaiBill]

And hardcore libertarians when someone dares ask them to share.

Take a look at Vinod's political donations.

He has supported higher taxes for alternative energy and stem cell research. He has donated to both Dem and Rep candidates, mostly moderates (at least by California standards). There is no record of him donating to a Libertarian.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[ShanghaiBill]

Hawaii's beach access law is even stronger than California's. Not only is the beach public up to the highest wash of the waves, but the public is allowed to cross private land to reach the beach, and landowners cannot block their path.

This is the law of the land because a little boy was unable to reach the beach near his home and had to walk for miles to swim in the ocean. Then that little boy grew up, and became the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[93 Escort Wagon]

And that's Silicon Valley in a nutshell.

From what I've seen - most people's principles, liberal or conservative, stop (or at least get a lot more blurry) a few feet from themselves.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[iMadeGhostzilla]

He publicly backed Hillary Clinton so he must be rather on the progressive side.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[sunking2]

Since when do judges create laws? I think your history has a few issues.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Public ally backing Clinton when the other guy is Trump is just a sign of having seen a couple episodes of The Apprentice.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[__aaclcg7560]

They don't but judges can rule laws unconstitutional. A law to restrict beach access by homeowners probably got struck down as being unconstitutional.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[fredrated]

What the fuck are you on about? And "they"?

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[__aaclcg7560]

You mean Trump before he ran for president?

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[jcr]

There is no record of him donating to a Libertarian.

Of course not. Libertarians won't play ball with the whole crony capitalist gang.

-jcr

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Cyberax]

That's because Libertarians ARE the crony capitalism gang.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[thegarbz]

Doesn't remind me about it. Zuck owns the property he wants to build a wall around. He sued to try and identify owners of the parcels of land within his property, but so far there was no attempt to cut anyone off or do anything else untoward against a handful of people.

On the other hand this douchbag thinks he owns a public beach.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[thegarbz]

Judges don't create law, they interprate law. If you've ever read a law you'll find a lot of them leave ample room for interpretation.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[ShanghaiBill]

Since when do judges create laws?

Hawaiian law says that the shoreline is public land. The Supreme Court interpreted that law to require reasonable public access, since otherwise the law would be meaningless in many areas. The legislature can clarify the original law by amending or replacing it if they so chose, but they have never done that.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

He publicly backed Hillary Clinton so he must be rather on the conservative side.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Ramze]

Interesting. I'd like to know what caveats there are to that rule for Hawaii.

As for California, I'm surprised this went so long even for a billionaire. In real estate law (for every state I know of), there are rules about easements. If anyone ever allowed the public to cross their private land for any reason, that easement can be enforced for all future owners of the property. Seems pretty straightforward that this guy purchased property with an easement to the beach and so must maintain it.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[dryeo]

Since when do judges create laws? I think your history has a few issues.

Assuming you live in the USA or a Commonwealth (including most exCommonwealth) country, for close to the last millennium. We're all common law countries, which means that, to quote wiki

Common law (also known as judicial precedent or judge-made law or case law) is the body of law developed by judges, courts, and similar tribunals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Though over the last few hundred years, much law has been legislated, still the courts interpret those laws, some of which are very vague, often on purpose as the legislature expects the courts to sort things out.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Syrprisgly enough for your limited civics education, courts decide these things most of the time, if the legislature does not.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Reverend Green]

Since 1803

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, libertarians are fucking morons by nature. Having money doesn't make you smart.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Reverend Green]

No, not at all. Libertarians are useful idiots for the crony capitalist gang.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[rgmoore]

It's an example of the principle that possession is 9/10 of the law. There was an easement, but once he physically blocked it the case had to work its way through the courts to force him to open it up again. An asshole willing to spend a lot of money on legal fees can keep a case like that tied up in the courts for a very long time.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[jcr]

Fuck you too, sunshine.

-jcr

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Reverend Green]

Up yours, running dog. ;-)

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

See, I've got no problem with that. I'd personally would not mind if people cross my property to have to get somewhere. My only problem has been the liablity that comes with letting people on your property, if they slip/fall/etc and can sue you.

I'm assuming that Hawaii law also comes with indemnity for the property owner in those cases, and if so, perfectly fine with it.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

That's because Libertarians ARE the crony capitalism gang.

Yeah, accusing others are what you are: a typical tactic of totalitarians and fascists.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Darinbob]

Bring a lawsuit to the courts, and the courts get to decide based on the law. When the laws are vague or contradict each other, then the courts decide. Nothing wrong with that. The legislature has the ability to change the laws however if they don't like the courts ruling. Nothing wrong with that either. Nobody ever has the final word.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Gavagai80]

As socialist liberal, I actually do sympathize with billionaires who invest in a great beachfront home and then have to let the public waltz through their beach. It kind of defeats the point of buying a beachfront home. But ultimately, unless the law was changed after he bought the place, he should've known the rules going in and bought something a bit off the beach instead.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Gavagai80]

It's actually quite interesting how few of the really wealthy capitalists are libertarian. I don't have the stats, but it feels like people making around $100K are the libertarians while those above and below aren't.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Solandri]

Honestly, I think rich people just throw their money at it to keep it tied up in court for as long as they can. Malibu has the exact same problem - the beach is public, but the houses in front of it block access. The few public access gates are frequently locked (illegally) or vandalized by property owners to prevent the public from accessing the beach.

The basic idea is that you can't own the beach. You can own the land adjacent to it, but the beach (in California, up to the point where it's submerged during high tide) belongs to the public. Rich people have tried to get around this by buying up all the land in front of a beach to make it difficult or annoyingly distant for the public to access it. But the CCC responds by requiring a public accessway be installed if that happens.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[kamaaina]

I thought even Islands like Niihau and Kahoolawe must allow beach access, not sure on the law but I recall some boats visiting those islands without needing permission.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

What has Vinod Khosla done that is liberal? Since you don't have anything just say you have nothing.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Vinegar Joe]

It's NOT his fucking beach.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[mwvdlee]

Yeah, I know the problem.
I live in an appartment building and even though I own my appartment, I still have to let other people waltz through the same appartment building.
It's total bullshit!

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Cyberax]

Yep, and comparing everyone to Hitler and Stalin is a typical tactic of whiny conservative-libertarian-anti-SJWs.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Shadow of Eternity]

That's exactly what they do, or in the case of corporations they just outright ignore the law and treat whatever penalty they get as an operating expense because it's so pathetic compared to their profits there's no reason to care.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Sique]

As the psychologist Alfred Adler once said: "It is always easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them."

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

But not anti-profits, which these surfers very well may be.

Captcha: barrier

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google "high tide line"

2. Get back to us.

3. This time, try actually *reading* the thread you thought you were responding to.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean you've never heard of His Honor the Surfing Judge Dude of Maui?

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Vinod is not a liberal (don't know if he thinks he is, suspect not really).

Him and his VC firm are a bunch of ppl who think they are the best, brightest and critically, entitled because of that.

I've publicly shamed them before, to the face of one of his more idiotic and arrogant venture partners. Wasn't even sport, no one in the Vally dares... the guy just sputtered and ran away.

He started it, telling me to 'come back when I knew what I was talking about'. Trying to establish his bonafides with a room full of other investors and CEOs at a conference. Once I got him to say 'I'm not trying to help my portfolio companies' he was done -> he headed for the door.

Oh and yes, we did get funded, and kicked the ass of the portfolio co he thought was a competitor. Shall we all laugh at you again B^h (you know who you are). Yes you, jackass! :)

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't confuse a libertarian with far left liberals. They are VASTLY different on many key issues.

Libertarians believe:
* Adults should be allowed to make decisions about themselves and their families - how they live, where they live, and lifestyle choices, within their means.
* If someone wants to kill themselves, regardless of method, that is fine. Gun, knife, repeated use of burgers or "drugs" is completely fine.
* No debt. If you need a loan, then you don't get it.
* Stay out of other people's business, be that a neighbor or different country.
* Pretty much anything that doesn't harm other people or other people's things should be allowed. There are exceptions, of course.
* Personal responsibility. YOU are responsible for yourself and family. The govt has no responsibility to provide anything. The old "independent American" is the best example.

So, if I can't think of a way that someone else's behavior or actions harm me (or others) in a real way, then that behavior or action is allowed. Stupid behaviors are allowed. A few examples:
* no motorcycle helmets.
* no anti-drug laws.
* gay marriage (multi-partner marriages are fine too)
This applies to adults. Parents are RESPONSIBLE for the well-being of their children.

There are a few lines that I would cross. I would force vaccinations on all children / adults using public institutions - schools, colleges, govt jails, govt jobs.
I would hold accountable any parents who refuse medical treatment for religious reasons if harm comes to the child.
I would make all govt employees who fail to perform their duty or abuse their power to be forced out of their position AND prevent them from ever working in govt again. Public trust is critical.

Almost any land use would be allowed, provided it was returned to the prior state (escrow account required) after that use was completed.

Libertarians aren't perfect, but we recognize that each adult needs to be responsible for themselves and allowed to make their own decisions, then live with the repercussions from those decisions.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

"Him and his VC firm are a bunch of ppl who think they are the best, brightest and critically, entitled because of that."

Yeah, that's sounding pretty much the definition of American Liberal.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzzt.
Most law in common law countries is court created. This isn't just first year law school stuff, it's literallu first day.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Feckin-A slant escaping Ganges crocs wants sandy USA property ... pilgrims guess a spadeful up his azzwhole and dirt-sammitch likely what he'll get.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not an easement. The beach up to the high tide line is public land. It never belonged to him in the first place.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[hord]

It's not YOUR beach either. Or the public's since no such thing exists. Technically the "public" contains all dead persons in the past as well as unborn persons of the future. It's especially the people of the future who matter for these things since the reason we arrive at where we are today is because of the decisions of prior people's before us.

This will happen as long as people think they can control land or control the use of it. You can only control yourself and your surroundings. While a beach is nice, if every asshole and his mom are going to live there, you will have to put up with fights over control of it. The rich have more resources to apply force and the poor have a will to anger. It won't change because all of them feel they OWN a piece of dirt and sky. This is all of civilized history.

Tear down the walls. Tear down the fences. Read some Prudhomme. Property is the root of all evil.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Applehu Akbar]

The California Supreme Court decided the specifics of public access in 1970 in the Gion-Dietz case:
http://law.justia.com/cases/ca...

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point entirely, you stupid fucking retarded piece of shit.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Pinky's Brain]

Libertarians have no political power, why would he donate?

He's libertarian in that he believes in feudalism with him on top, with feudalism obviously being the only time in history when libertarianism was practiced that makes him a libertarian.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

* No debt. If you need a loan, then you don't get it.

That doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Not being in debt is smart, but if I want a loan to buy a home or car and I qualify for the loan then that's my business between me and a private company. If I don't repay then they get ownership of the collateral.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[v1]

He saw something he wanted, and tried to take it.

Well he didn't try to take it, he DID take it. (he got the fence put up) Now he's finally being forced to return it.

Taking stuff is often not too difficult. It's the keeping it that's the challenge. And that's what separates the rich from the poor, as the rich can afford to pay their lawyers to try to hold onto it for awhile. (and sometimes indefinitely)

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Khyber]

"Where does beach access and trespassing get defined?"

In a law book which your dumb ass should've read.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least their public personas aren't.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Z00L00K]

Similar here in Sweden, up to 300m from the shoreline is public land.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

The easement was the path to access the shoreline, not the shoreline itself.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

Libertarianism is free market capitalism and government only by contract. Libertarianism doesn't believe in any sort of collectivist rights -- there is no "public good," only what the individuals decide to do. How is that *not* the definition of crony capitalism?

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[green1]

The truly rich people are on the government gravy train, they would never want a Libertarian government because the gravy train would stop.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant Proudhon.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[sjames]

He's not even being asked to share. He does not now nor has he ever owned the land he is trying to claim for his own. He is only being asked not to be a dirty thief.

Unless and until he ceases his anti-social behavior, he should be accorded all of the respect and admiration you would normally have for someone last seen picking school children's pockets for their lunch money.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because I can do it doesn't mean I should do it.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[SvnLyrBrto]

That's kind of a scum move on the part of Santa Cruz though. If the government intended for that land to remain open to unrestricted public use, they shouldn't have sold it in the first place. Or, at the very least, any easements should have been disclosed upfront before the sale (Aren't they supposed to be written into the deed itself, for that matter?); so that the buyers would be able to take into account that they would be denied the use of it themselves when deciding how much to offer to pay. Full disclosure, you know.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, I believe the prior owner charged people to access the beach, although whether or not you were charged or not depended on if there was anyone there to collect the fee. Access was controlled by a gate which was, at least typically, open. The new owner simply closed and locked the gate 7/24.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[SvnLyrBrto]

> I'm assuming that Hawaii law also comes with indemnity

That's a dangerous assumption. Many states have the notion of an "attractive nuisance" doctrine. Basically, even if someone is trespassing... and even of you have a fence or "no trespassing" signs or whatnot... if there's something about or on your property that can be interpreted as "attractive" to a trespasser, and said trespasser hurts himself; you can still be sued and found liable regardless of what other laws are in your favor. Giving permission only makes it worse. What counts as "attractive" varies. But back when I lived in Florida, it was used quite a lot against homeowners with swimming pools when some rando would trespass, fall, and down or crack their head on the concrete. So I could definitely see a beach, and especially a Pacific Ocean beach with rocks and cliffs, causing the same problem.

On principle, I'd also have no problem with people crossing my property to get from point A to point B... so long as it's undeveloped and they're not tromping through my actual yard, apple orchard, or whatever anyway... but without very explicit indemnity from the state with no option for a judge to discard or override it, I don't think I'd take chances on adding to potential liability by allowing it.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[uncqual]

Although I'd place the $100K border a bit higher (perhaps because I'm most familiar with one of the highest cost of living areas in the nation), I've noticed similar tendencies.

I suspect many wealthy people feel guilty about being wealthy. They then overcompensate -- including by thinking that taxes should be higher so the "little people" can be helped. The wealthy, of course, don't need the money for anything useful -- it's mostly a way of "keeping score" among others in their circle and if everyone in the circle have to pay higher taxes it doesn't change the game appreciably. Of course, they still look to put loopholes in tax law that help them, so if they are better at this than others in their circle, they get higher scores in "the game".

The poor... Well, they are poor and like most humans will take anything thing they can get for free as long as they don't get put in prison for doing so. Therefore, they are often all for higher taxes and more public services and programs for them to avail themselves of.

On the other hand, those in the middle upper class are most impacted by taxes (esp. income and property taxes) because they really do give up something relatively useful to them on a daily basis in order to pay those taxes. Not being able to afford to add a second bathroom to your household of four people because taxes took the money you would have spent on the new bathroom is quite different from taxation resulting in you having to use a lower grade of custom quarried Italian marble from a specific quarry in your sixth guest bathroom in one of your four large vacation homes.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[uncqual]

It is, however, his land that people want access to in order to gain convenient access to the beach. There is no question that the public owns the beaches in California up to the high tide line (IIRC) and has the right to use them (ironically, except when the government says you can't -- goose, meet gander) - but you can always reach a beach via a boat, swimming, hang gliding, helicopter etc. or by climbing/traversing across neighboring beaches to get there.

The right thing to do would have been for the government, with public dollars, to buy the land to provide access -- just as they have to BUY the land to build new public roads across private property to provide more convenient access between two public areas (often, nearby roads and highways). Beach access paths are virtually indistinguishable from any other form of public road or trail. If the government and the landowners can't negotiate a deal, imminent domain can then be used and the landowner should receive compensation for the land and/or any significant reduction in value of the remainder of his adjacent land due to the new use. It's fine for the government to take land for legitimate public use -- the landowners should however be compensated as required by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The government should not be able to create an "easement" on private property for public use by passing a law or regulation, or via judicial action without just compensation.

In this particular case, I have little sympathy for Khosla though. When he purchased the property the risk of the courts deciding that the thing he was purchasing wasn't really his was clear and I'm sure he paid a lower price due to this risk. The owner of the property at the time the relevant laws were enacted was the individual who ultimately deserved compensation from the government.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[epine]

Not being able to afford to add a second bathroom to your household of four people because taxes took the money you would have spent on the new bathroom ...

Just because a number flicked across your bank statement, doesn't make it "yours".

You can't even legitimately play make believe about this, unless you actually consumed no government services whatsoever.

Taxes are just another name for payment of services consumed, in aggregate.

You can't even get a group together at a restaurant without encountering this problem.

The cheapskate orders one appetiser, while the glutton orders the platter for two, and both flights of wine. Yet they both consumed table space, and they both depend on the restaurant actually existing, and all the overhead this entails. When the bill comes, are they each paying their exact share of the collective enterprise? Heavens no. Not by any means is this an exact accounting science.

Even if you love toll highways, and you find a way to toll for every square inch of asphalt (without merely enriching the booth monopoly), it's still not an exact accounting. There are sunk costs, and marginal costs, and arbitrary fee schedules designed to somehow split the difference.

Anyway, your complain reminds me of that time I stuck a dollar coin in a slot machine, and it robbed me of my future swimming pool.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

Libertarianism is free market capitalism and government only by contract. Libertarianism doesn't believe in any sort of collectivist rights

There are different forms of libertarianism, but that is one of them..

there is no "public good," only what the individuals decide to do.

Not quite. You make the incorrect assumption that the public good is best advanced through government action; history shows that to be false. Libertarians say that the public good is best advanced when individuals can act freely.

How is that *not* the definition of crony capitalism?

Well, it just isn't.

"crony capitalism noun derogatory an economic system characterized by close, mutually advantageous relationships between business leaders and government officials."

In democracies, crony capitalism can only happen when people like you convince more and more voters to place economic power in the hands of government officials, usually justifying it as being "for the public good"; that economic power is then used for collusion between business leaders and said government officials.

Libertarianism is the antidote to crony capitalism because libertarianism demands stripping government officials of economic power, and hence stripping them of the ability to hand out favors to business leaders.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

Judges DO make laws - It's called common law you idiot. Any first minute law student could tell you that.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

> demands stripping government officials of economic power

Strips it and puts that economic power where? In the hands of those who run corporations. You can say "it goes into the hands of individuals", but once someone has marginal economic authority over someone else, they can leverage that strength to ever further strength over that person. They aggregate that authority into a corporation. That's what happened with the company towns in the mining industry in the 19th and 20th century... the government was cut out and the power brokers were the people with the economic power to enforce effective slavery. We see it in all sorts of places around the world -- I saw it up close in the Caribbean where people were really held in thrall by the cruise ship companies. I've never gotten the cruise ship company's side of the story, but I kept thinking, "If only there was a government to step in to put these corporations in their place."

> Libertarians say that the public good is best advanced when individuals can act freely.

In my experience, liberty for individuals is not something that most individuals can defend on their own. It takes a systemic defense of liberty to maximize individual liberty. We give that systemic defense the name "representative government." It's not a perfect system, but I've seen no evidence that anything else works anywhere near as well. And Libertarians who advocate against it seem to me to be advocating against the very thing they claim to value most -- the maximization of individual liberty. They want to instead empower the "economic might makes right" that is the root of crony capitalism.

I don't think it's wrong to describe the two things as essentially identical.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Billly Gates]

It's NOT his fucking beach.

As someone who used to live in California and also Florida the problem is the real estate agents tell them it is your private beach .

THen they wonder why other people are trespassing on their beach and that is when the problem starts. They feel they worked hard too and it is not fair anyone can have what they were promised they paid for.

Today we call them private communities and yes they have guards will will harrass you if you dare go onto the public beaches and call the cops etc. The CEO who bought Richard Nixons beach home even installed a potato cannon to keep the surfers out.

After being told and seeing security officers block people you feel entitled and believe you own it and it is a vast government conspiracy into communism to share your beach you paid for promised by the real estate agent.

What needs to happen is not to false advertise. The people were sold that they owned it and after 20 years it is assumed so as that seemed to be the norm rather than the exception of liberals invading their land

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[uncqual]

You can't even legitimately play make believe about this, unless you actually consumed no government services whatsoever.

Since many services that would be private in another system are publicly subsidized/controlled in the US, it's virtually impossible to avoid "consuming" government "services" -- even if you don't want to or think you benefit from them. So, that's a ridiculous argument.

For example, the Federal Government makes it illegal to prescribe many drugs that are not FDA approved. So, the manufacturers have no choice but to get FDA approval -- and the government in some cases delays or refuses to grant such approval making it impossible for private enterprise to provide the medication to me. So, yes, if you want to take some medication that may save your life but it hasn't yet entered trials (or you don't qualify for the trial) so you can't get access to it and that results in your premature death, you have "consumed" a government service (the FDA's service of denying you access to a what may turn out to be a lifesaving medication) even though you didn't want to.

Taxes are just another name for payment of services consumed, in aggregate.

Again, ridiculous. A more correct formulation would be "Taxes are just another name for providing services to someone, somewhere in the world -- including those that cause you personal harm or that exist merely to enrich a vendor".

You can't even get a group together at a restaurant without encountering this problem. [...]

Again, ridiculous. You seem to fail to grasp the difference between voluntarily participating in and/or paying for an activity and being compelled by force to do so. The restaurant is free to charge a separate "service fee" per person to cover the table space (and, in some sense, some do by imposing a minimum charge for table service) or they are free to fold that into the price of various food items -- if you don't like the way one restaurant does it, you are free to patronize another restaurant that does it another way more to your liking.

Of course there are sunk costs and marginal costs to nearly everything -- your argument seems to dissolve down to that justifying the government taking over control of all activities.

This is not to say that all taxes are inappropriate. For example, there are a few powers that are specifically reserved to the Federal Government by the United States Constitution -- such as making treaties with foreign countries. Therefore, Federal taxes that support negotiating those treaties are likely appropriate as it's an activity only the Federal Government can engage in and that activity has to be paid for somehow.

The FDA approval of drugs however is something that the Federal Government does not need to provide. This is much like how the private UL (previously known as Underwriters Laboratories) sets standards for certain equipment but I am free to make and sell non UL approved devices and consumers are free to buy, or not buy, my product based on the reduced cost (no cost for approval) or the lack of "comfort" (no approval) they have feel due to the lack of approval. A private organization (perhaps many -- for example some offering insurance on the products they approve, some not) can set up standards for the testing and manufacturing of medications. Some manufacturers may choose not to pay for certification for all or some of their product line and you, as a consumer, are free to only buy products approved by an organization you trust. The only government involvement would be in the usual civil judicial process involving trademarks and the like which would prevent organizations from using the epine Labs Approved trademark without approval just as the UL trademarks are enforced.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an app, Our Malibu Beaches, that lists fake signs and obscuring of beach entrances.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/our-malibu-beaches/id565636167?mt=8

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.escapeapps.knowwhat.app.la.yourmalibubeaches&hl=en

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/escapeapps/opening-this-summer-the-malibu-beaches-0

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

In my experience, liberty for individuals is not something that most individuals can defend on their own. It takes a systemic defense of liberty to maximize individual liberty. We give that systemic defense the name "representative government." It's not a perfect system, but I've seen no evidence that anything else works anywhere near as well. And Libertarians who advocate against it

Libertarians aren't anarchists; libertarians don't advocate against representative government. Libertarians advocate against government intervention in the economy. That is, libertarians advocate against crony capitalism.

They want to instead empower the "economic might makes right" that is the root of crony capitalism.

"Economic might makes right" is not a libertarian principle or concept.

Libertarian ideology and philosophy has been clearly stated by a number of authors. Pick any one of them and then link it to the actual definition of "crony capitalism" by a coherent argument. We can take this up again when you have done that.

Right now, you obviously don't understand neither what "libertarianism" means nor what "crony capitalism" means.

I stand by my statement that the primary source of crony capitalism is an unintentional but inevitable byproduct of progressive of fascist policies.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Assuming you live in the USA or a Commonwealth (including most exCommonwealth) country, for close to the last millennium. We're all common law countries...

Yep, each state is different...under Arizona State Law 13-103:

A. All common law offenses and affirmative defenses are abolished. No conduct or omission constitutes an offense or an affirmative defense unless it is an offense or an affirmative defense under this title or under another statute or ordinance.

Used to drink with a retired city prosecutor and (at the time) part time judge who would often remind me that "Arizona isn't a common law state".

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

Someday maybe a libertarian will actually establish a libertarian zone somewhere to move these discussions out of the hypothetical. In my experience, those who claim libertarian positions and who also seem to understand libertarianism, tend to take positions that champion short-term liberty at the cost of long-term. Maybe that wouldn't be true in a place where libertarian ideals are the basis of operation.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

Well, you have conclusively proved one thing: you are both utterly ignorant and incapable of engaging in a rational argument.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

I'm just telling you what my experience is. I don't know any other way to phrase this reply. I wasn't trying to be insulting.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[MarcusOutrageous]

And all of them agree that Caitlin Jenner is a beautiful woman! I'm sure they'd be happy to date her. Or be proud that their son or nephew is dating her!!!

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

We are discussing this statement:

"That's because Libertarians ARE the crony capitalism gang."

Defending that statement requires linking the actual positions of libertarians to the actual meaning of "crony capitalism".

What you have done is fabricated all sorts of incorrect statements about libertarianism, falsely equating it with anarchy or kratocracy, and using an incorrect definition of "crony capitalism".

Your experience is irrelevant: stick to the facts and stop confabulating, fabricating, or inventing things.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[MarcusOutrageous]

The vast majority of very wealthy capitalists end up being corporatist and ultimately statist. All humans (all lifeforms even, including proto-life like viruses) seek status increases. Once one has a lot of money it is pretty easy to get lured into the fact that America is corporatist because it is actually REALLY FUCKING CHEAP to buy access to some useful political power for anyone who can put as little as 5-10K per year into donations. This is probably what Khosla is counting on to help him steal the land from the people. He is a THEIF and should be labelled as one. Preferably a THEIF who LACKS ENOUGH WEALTH TO SHARE. He'd hate being called poor more than ANYTHING else.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[dryeo]

Bet you that Judges still look at precedent, like if the Supreme Court has ruled on something, creating common law, Arizona judges will honour it.
Think of the 2nd amendment, really simple, "The people have the right to bear arms" yet all kinds of limitations have been legislated and the courts have agreed with many even though the Constitution is Supreme and generally simple.
Besides, we're talking historically, Arizona had to legislate that common law was canceled. They also didn't legislate a replacement such as civil law.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

I'm going to continue this discussion, but I'm saying up front: there's a strong tendency among libertarians online to declare that anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand libertarianism. I'm continuing this on the assumption that you're open to critique.

Regulations of mortgages is my favorite example. The various US states each has a long list of rules and regulations that prohibit a whole range of behaviors when selling or buying a private property. This has been anathema to every libertarian I've ever discussed with because it interferes with the private contract between consenting adults. Such regulations limit freedom. And they do in the short term sense of saying, "Even though you own the property, you still are not free to do with it as you please."

Would you agree that opposition to mortgage regulations is a libertarian position?

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

In parallel to the mortgage discussion, I'll spin up two other examples to discuss.

Doctor-assisted suicide. In the past, libertarians tell me that it ought to be legal for a doctor to help someone who wants to die kill themselves, and it ought to be easy and quick to prevent suffering. Nothing is more personal than timing your own death, and the state has no business sticking its nose in and limiting individual freedom.

Only Oregon in the USA currently allows the practice, and it has lots of regulations around it. It is neither easy to get approval nor is it fast to get approval. That is *by design*. There are many reasons the other states ban it entirely (religion being the big one), so I'm going to focus on the reason that Oregon regulates it so much: coercion. The financial incentive to kill the eldest generation and inherit their wealth before they "waste" it all on health care is huge. You can pour through case after case in history of families bumping off the grandparents early. Oregon reps reviewed lots of those cases when putting their law together. To prevent someone from killing a grandparent and then saying, "Oh, he/she asked me to help them commit suicide," and thus getting away with murder, there is a process. You have to acknowledge on three separate occasions, separated by a significant amount of time, that, yes, it is your intent to end your life, and then you have to do the final drug taking yourself under doctor supervision.

Other states have tried to pass assisted suicide laws. Most are stopped by religion, but a fair number are stopped by the cover-for-murder problem. There's also a coercion problem, but I'll cover that in the third parallel thread: unions.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

Last one: unions

Many (I think most) unions have a clause that says "Not only can the boss not require us to work more than X hours, but no employee is allowed to voluntarily work more than X hours." There are similar clauses that limit an employee who wants to excel from being allowed to do so. Libertarians have told me these are horrible limitations, made worse when a government sanctifies that contract and enforces it.

The problem is that if you remove that restriction, you enter the realm of coercion. As a boss, which employee are you going to promote: the one who works a 40 hour shift and goes home or the one who works 40 hours and then adds 10 hours of voluntary overtime for free? Easy! The second one. It makes total economic sense. And it makes sense for the second person to do that volunteering because they get a promotion. Everyone wins in this libertarian scenario, except for the guy who slacks off.

Except... the whole point of fighting for the 40 hour week was to be able to escape the financial leverage of the boss so that an employee can have a work-home balance. If other employees are allowed to volunteer to work more hours and then get rewarded for that, it puts the financial leverage right back in the hands of the employer. What was voluntary becomes, effectively, an industry requirement. We see this happen all the time in the tech industry where software engineers are salaried, and over time, the expected number of hours just keeps going up de facto if not de jure.

Short-term liberty at the cost of long-term liberty.

This example is at the heart of why I equate libertarian positions with crony capitalist positions. To my eyes, the libertarian positions only work if everyone is trying to be nice and let everyone be free. It appears to me to continue to give economic power absolute authority, and giving power to those who have the money to leverage it creates exactly the situations where corporations can control the people and governments around them.

Maybe it wouldn't happen in a libertarian society -- customers would be outraged by a company that tried to leverage its workers into de facto slavery and stop doing business with that company. But what happens in practice is that Wal-Mart lowers prices and everyone buys more from them. I specify Wal-Mart specifically. The ruling family preaches and appears to practice libertarian ideals, and those ideals allow them to exploit workers and control suppliers such that they come out on top in every contract deal I've ever heard them be involved with. "You will lower your cost to us, vendor, or we will drop your entire product line." They oppose any government regulation that would get in the way of those contracts.

Economic coercion is the most devious force at work in our society, and no force, in my opinion, needs more regulation than how each of us is allowed to spend our own money, precisely to avoid situations where people are coerced into activities they would not willingly do. But libertarianism, as I understand it and see it practiced, finds that anathema.

That is my thesis in three forks. I'm willing to try to discuss this rationally. Let's see where it goes.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

That is ridiculous. No-one is required to provide beach access to someone who died 200 years ago.

The "public" is a term for several concepts - one is the whole citizenry, another may be the entire population in a location and not qualified by citizenship, another may be any subset of those filtered relevant criteria, such as the access of children to a school if and only if they are duly registered there.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[KGIII]

You do know what libertarian means, yes? It is the opposing side of authoritarian, on the political compass. It's a broad spectrum.

I'm a pretty hardcore libertarian, and you can use my property if you want. It's all good. Just clear your mess, when you're done.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[KGIII]

Just as an addendum, I own all the land around a body of water. I must allow public access.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

And what does the legality of doctor assisted suicide have to do with the thesis we are discussing, namely that "Libertarians are the crony capitalist gang"?

In the past, libertarians tell me that it ought to be legal for a doctor to help someone who wants to die kill themselves,

Yes, and so do many socialists, conservatives, liberals, and people of all stripes. You yourself seem to agree, because nowhere do you make any argument against doctor assisted suicide per se; you simply voice concerns that it might be abused as a cover for murder. Your example has nothing to do with libertarianism. Beyond that, I'm not going to discuss the legality of legalizing assisted suicide with you, except to say that your argument against it needs a lot of work because it is an incoherent mess.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

Your example is irrelevant to the thesis "Libertarians ARE the crony capitalism gang."

And otherwise, I don't see what your example has to do with libertarians. Libertarians aren't opposed to unions. Beyond that, your comment doesn't get libertarianism wrong, it gets history and economics wrong.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

I'm going to continue this discussion, but I'm saying up front: there's a strong tendency among libertarians online to declare that anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand libertarianism. I'm continuing this on the assumption that you're open to critique.

The question isn't whether you "understand" libertarianism but whether you are talking about it at all. There are different forms of libertarianism, stated clearly in a number of books and publications (Boaz and Kibbe might work for you). Pick whichever suits your argument best and then start arguing from it. Then take the definition of "crony capitalism" (I gave it). Then try to connect the two with a logical argument.

Where you most lack understanding, however, is not in libertarianism, but in economics, history, and political science. That's much harder to correct.

Would you agree that opposition to mortgage regulations is a libertarian position?

Yes, but it's also a position of many conservatives and socialists if you look around the world. So I don't see what this has to do with libertarianism.

Furthermore, mortgage regulations, like many regulations, are also an example of crony capitalism and a source of financial instability and harm to consumers.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

the article is about california... and it was passed as a proposition by the voters. http://www.beachapedia.org/Coastal_Act_and_the_California_Coastal_Commission

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, this is why libertarianism is so damn stupid, it opposes having any laws around child abuse, speed limits, rape, drivers licenses, and the list goes on.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[PlaynBass]

Also in Arizona, ranchers have protected access to huge tracts of private lands due to the open range laws which checkerboarded square mile sections of public BLM land with square mile sections of private land, declaring it all "open range" and requiring the private landowner to construct fencing to keep cattle and other livestock off their land. If the livestock is injured by a fence that was not up to code the private land owner is held liable for any injuries and must pay damages. If a cow damages the private fence and causes other damages, it's Tough shit! Too bad! The owner of the fence gets to pay for the repairs!

Crony Capitalism at it's finest! And it's the law!

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

I am trying to build up an answer to your challenge piecemeal because going directly to my thesis isn't going to work -- you've already shown several times that the axioms of your philosophy and mine are inconsistent. For example, what you call crony capitalism in the mortgage regulations is exactly what I would call the defense against crony capitalism. I think you and I would agree that today there are corporations who take advantage of the mortgage system and get away with terrible things, all protected by law. You see the existing mortgage regulations as enabling that criminal behavior. I see regulation as one of the major defenses that keeps that criminal behavior from being far worse. My contention is that if we moved the system to a more libertarian basis that the corporations would be far more powerful than they are today.

We are going to have to work backward to find which of us has a flawed axiom. Honestly, your position is as absurd to me as mine is to you. We can sit here and call each other idiots all day, but that doesn't do anything to help decide what kinds of changes might help our country and our world become a more satisfactory place to live. Are you willing to have that discussion or do you want to continue insulting me and my viewpoint on history, economics, and political science?

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

No where in any of that did I give my position one way or the other on assisted suicide. I never voiced my concerns -- I stated the concerns voiced by various sides of that debate, trying to highlight the libertarian analysis of that one topic. I thought that by documenting one historical example of a libertarian analysis that I had experience with that I might be able to highlight what I see as a flaw in that analysis. If I can get you to recognize the flaw in that narrow topic's analysis, I thought I might be able to then show you how that same flaw applies in a much broader context across a wide range of economic issues, and how that flaw encourages rather than discourages crony capitalism.

Please re-read my post and respond on the main point: does a libertarian who claims to want to maximize individual liberty do better by supporting or by opposing assisted suicide in light of the coercion argument?

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

identify owners of the parcels of land within his property,

Oh so he doesn't own ALL the land.
Actually the real story is Zuck is just another white asshole trying to steal a Native Peoples land. White people are such thieves.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Zaelath]

The purchaser did know about the easement prior to purchase according to the ruling....?

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually quite interesting how few of the really wealthy capitalists are libertarian. I don't have the stats, but it feels like people making around $100K are the libertarians while those above and below aren't.

In a country under the rule of a huge, powerful, and corrupt government, the wealthiest people in society will be those that cosy up to the state, those that have no deep-seated ideological problem with the state.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

Honestly, your position is as absurd to me as mine is to you

Your position isn't absurd to me at all. I know pretty much what you believe and why you believe it because I used to believe it myself. That's also how I know that it is wrong.

We are going to have to work backward to find which of us has a flawed axiom.

I have stated my axioms: they are those of classical liberalism, aka libertarianism in the US. You obviously don't understand them since you keep making assertions that aren't true. The only thing that needs "debugging" here is your understanding of what classical liberalism is, and you will have to do that by reading some books about it instead of fabricating statements out of thin air. Boaz "The Libertarian Mind" is a good introduction. You can find more reading here and here.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

Please re-read my post and respond on the main point

I already responded to it: your coercion argument is unsound in ways that have nothing to do with libertarianism.

More importantly, though, you cannot cherry-pick libertarian principles and policy positions and then apply them out of context. As a libertarian, I want legalized physician assisted suicide only if the health care system is fully privatized and largely unregulated; as long as Medicare/Medicaid exist, I want physician assisted suicide to remain illegal.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

We're done here. Have a good day.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The point of a beachfront home is the view and easy access/walk to the beach. A beachfront home doesn't actually own the land in front of it.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[doctorvo]

We're done here

Yes, that's what I keep telling you: before any further discussion is possible, you need to do your homework. Right now, you speak from a position of complete ignorance. I'm glad you realize it.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Actually, I do RTFA]

If you own all the land that surrounds my house, I have an undeniable right to transverse your property to get to my house. It's the same principle.

Re: They're liberal when it suits them

[Aristos Mazer]

*sigh*

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a very narrow definition of Libertarians. It includes only objectivism, anarcho libertarianism and perhaps fiscal libertarians. It doesn't cover civil libertarianism, geolibertarians, libertarian socialists, minarchist (which is the form of libertarianism most like Conservatism) or even distributism.
Such a definition is a symptom of not being able to see the world is a lot more complex than many people would like.
The term "public good", like the term "common good" is a weasel word. Until you tell me what definition you're using it is meaningless. When you do tell me the meaning it invariably seems that you're part of the 'common' or 'public' and I'm not.

Re:They're liberal when it suits them

[Anonymous Coward]

gfy

Speedo

[rfengr]

I'll wear a speedo to the beach. All 250, pasty pounds of me. What an asshole. I had $30k of Sun stock at one time; all worthless now.

Re:Speedo

[Anonymous Coward]

US$30K could have gotten you a lot of Speedos.

Re:Speedo

[93 Escort Wagon]

US$30K could have gotten you a lot of Speedos.

So perhaps we should be thanking everyone associated with the demise of Sun, rather than castigating them?

Re:Speedo

[jcr]

I had $30k of Sun stock at one time; all worthless now.

I'd blame that incompetent douche, Jon Schwartz for that. Also McNeely for putting Schwartz in charge of the place.

-jcr

Re:Speedo

[Zontar The Mindless]

You're both making shit up--all options/shares in Sun were converted 1:1 to Oracle options/shares at the time of acquisition.

Re:Speedo

[Anonymous Coward]

wrong, wrong oh... so wrong.... Granted I only had a few thousand dollars of Sun stock I can say for certain I didn't get a one for one options/shares when the acquisition was finalized.

Re:Speedo

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a lawyer but you should definitely talk to one.

The oldest law

[meerling]

The oldest recognized law in Oregon is that everyone has access to the beach, you can't impede or infringe on that right.
It was inherited from the native inhabitants, and despite it not having been written down before hand, was well recognized and benefits everyone.
Californian developers and the like that come up here and try to take over sections of the beach get a very rude legal awakening.
They've also tried to sue for "loss of value", but they always lose because the property they bought never included the beach in the first place.

Re:The oldest law

[Obfuscant]

was well recognized and benefits everyone.

Not everyone. There are times when it will impede the neighboring landowner from taking preventive measures to stop the erosion of his property by the ocean that everyone has access to. Putting in rip rap need not impede the public access to the beach, but it is prohibited anyway.

They've also tried to sue for "loss of value", but they always lose because the property they bought never included the beach in the first place.

The issue is when the property itself becomes "beach" because the owner cannot make any attempts at stopping it. Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.

Re: The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want to deal with Ocean front risks in a legal way, don't own property here. Otherwise i can dredge the beach adjacent to my neighbors property and use it to build fines to protect me. Sounds fine, but it means his property faces erosion even faster. It's like building a flood wall around your property and "aiming" the diverted water at your neighbors.

It's an asshole thing to do. No D R or L needed.

Re:The oldest law

[drinkypoo]

Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.

It wasn't taken by the state or the people, and you can't sue the ocean. I'd tell them what I would tell anyone who buys oceanfront property: if you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to buy it. I come from Santa Cruz, where there are a few houses literally on the beach on pilings (actually I think they are technically in an unincorporated area) and they get smashed up now and again and then the wealthy owners rebuild, because that's how it works. And with ice melting and oceans warming, the coast is an even less tenable position than ever before in human history.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is when the property itself becomes "beach" because the owner cannot make any attempts at stopping it. Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.

Buyer beware.

It's not like you can't get a geological report done BEFORE buying oceanfront property that is nothing but clay waiting to be whisked to the sea. Or legal advice to advise you that you don't own the sea, and can't take action to prevent the natural erosion that has been occurring for the last many million years.

Re:The oldest law

[MightyMartian]

The lesson: Buy land adjacent to bodies of water at your own risk.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

The lesson: Buy land adjacent to bodies of water at your own risk.

No, the lesson is, "Don't be a jerk." and maybe "Know the local laws before you spend lots of money on purchasing property."

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's the taxpayers at risk, for having to subsidize all the under-market-price govt. flood insurance.

Re:The oldest law

[dryeo]

It's funny in a way, ocean front used to be one of the lowest classes of property, often inhabited by squatters and other low life.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny in a way, ocean front used to be one of the lowest classes of property, often inhabited by squatters and other low life.

these beach front property folks who get insurance money to rebuild their mansions after the storm are also squatters and low life

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell someone who used to have an acre of oceanfront property who now has no oceanfront property that he has lost nothing of value.

ok.

"Sir? Yes, you, I have something to tell you: you have lost nothing of value."

Feel better now?

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Semites believe laws accidental/judicial. Just laws codify commonly practiced social behavior ( and values ). Social behavior averages and mollifies individual human survival traits, underlying biology and genetics. Genetics supervien on Newtons Laws, Maxwells Equations and Shrodingers equation. What we must do is what we most desire. EOF.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

"Putting in rip rap need not impede the public access to the beach, but it is prohibited anyway."

Putting up rip-rap and other barriers to erosion can *destroy* the beach, because the ongoing erosion of the land is what supplies sediment that replenishes the beach. Putting up boulders can stifle the supply to the point that the beach disappears. It makes sense to the landowner to want to protect their investment, but the fact is they *chose* to obtain property that had an actively eroding coastline. Them's the breaks. Caveat emptor. It's not the public's problem that the beach is a mobile and ever-changing interface between land and water.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in the case of erosion, the state is not completely innocent.
The state makes it very hard to prevent beach erosion and beach replacement.
So there are many beach front property owners with more than half their property under water.

That said, the public beach rules are clear.
Above the mean high tide is private, below is public.
It's a little tricky to sort out where that line is, but assuming the sherriff can do that.
Depending on the slope of the beach, this may give a wide beach for sunbathing, or not even a small strip at low tide for walking.

So a security guard telling you to get off the beach, may of may not be right depending on where you are with respect to the line.
It would be pretty hard for the guard to be right if you are in a chair with your feet in the water at low tide.
It would be pretty easy if you were on a wide beach with the high tide debre line way below you.
Situational awareness is key.

The interesting question is usually how to get to that public beach.
Access without a boat requires traversing something on the private side of the line.
In many cases, there a public easements if you know about them.
It is in the interest of land owners to take measures to make this as hard as possible.
Often, getting around these measures requires land documents research, surveyors, and lawyers.
Local beachfront governments often have to do this after a public outcry.

It would seem that such a saga is what this story is about.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny in a way, ocean front used to be one of the lowest classes of property, often inhabited by squatters and other low life.

these beach front property folks who get insurance money to rebuild their mansions after the storm are also squatters and low life

And that insurance money comes from the government (in the US) because most private companies deem flood insurance along the coast as too high risk. So it's we the taxpayers that pay to rebuild these mansions over and over again.

Re:The oldest law

[freeze128]

...Also, don't build your house on the top of a cliff, or at the base of a volcano. This is common sense.

Re:The oldest law

[Aristos Mazer]

That's not the fault of the people or the state. If landowner finds a way to sue the ocean, he/she is welcome to take the waters to court.

Re:The oldest law

[Aristos Mazer]

If we're pricing it appropriately, that should be a money making operation for the government, even if it is high risk.

Re:The oldest law

[Billly Gates]

California developers are still winning.

You see in places like Malibu they bought all the roads with so called "private communities" and without a card you can't drive to the roads to the beaches. Viola problem solved!

You can try by boat but in California you will be shot at by cannons loaded with potatos, private security guards, and angry locals who do not want you on their turf as they paid good money with the promise of "private beach access" by the realtor agent.

What this guy is doing is standard business in California. Beach access is difficult at best even if it is publicly legal.

Re:The oldest law

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yes, because everything is predictable: and thus armed with perfect knowledge we can make laws that cover every possible situation or variation thereon, in advance.

Idiot.

Re:The oldest law

[Anonymous Coward]

The Oregon law was also a result of there being no other way to connect coastal communities at low tide during early European colonization, Territorialization, and Statehood. Many coastal communities had no inland route to anywhere, and the only connection to the rest of the European settlements was by boat or stagecoach at low tide on the hard wet sand. When Oregon developed the Oregon Department of Transportation (or whatever it was called when it was created) the coast was actually administered by ODOT. The coast is now administered by Oregon State Parks and Recreation. I recommend Florence, Oregon and The Dunes.

Re:The oldest law

[Obfuscant]

It wasn't taken by the state or the people, and you can't sue the ocean.

Non-sequitor. He has lost something of value. Period.

I'd tell them what I would tell anyone who buys oceanfront property: if you can't afford to lose it, you can't afford to buy it.

If you cannot afford to lose your car, you cannot afford to buy it. No, it doesn't seem to work that way in the real world, does it?

The point is that there are steps that could be taken with no detriment to the public to protect someone's beach-front property, but because the "public" owns the beach upon which a few rocks would be placed to dissipate the wave energy before it reaches the cliff, it cannot be done. This is a clear case where the public ownership of the beach does not benefit the neighboring property owner.

Still blocked

[rossz]

The bastard is ignoring the court ruling and is keeping the access way blocked. I'd like to see the judge issue an arrest warrant for contempt of court.

Re:Still blocked

[rtb61]

A class action law suit for the lost value of the beach to the public for the period of time they were illegally prevented access to it based on the claimed value put forward by the egoistic prick himself. So the rent on a claimed $30 million dollar asset plus penalties, likely doubling or tripling that, for the period access was denied and that money going to the local government as representatives of that community.

Re: Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing wrong with putting a wealthy and pretentious asshole in the brig for a few days!

Re: Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

If there's an easement, blocking it is like blocking any other public right of way. I imagine it's an offense you can be arrested and jailed for if you are caught doing it knowing it's a public way. No need to wait for the owner to open it; it can be reported and the obstruction removed at the owner's expense (assuming it's clear whose gate it is).

Re:Still blocked

[Kjella]

The bastard is ignoring the court ruling and is keeping the access way blocked. I'd like to see the judge issue an arrest warrant for contempt of court.

Well until the judgement is final it's not final. Though I like the approach they typically take to this type of cases here in Norway, which is to impose daily fines. They typically can't be stayed so you can delay and appeal all you like but the claim against you is constantly accumulating and if you eventually lose it's going to be pretty massive. It's the same for missing building permits and such too, they can't ask you to raze anything. But if you've built it illegally and want to drag it out through the court system a few years, it's going to cost you dearly.

Re:Still blocked

[MightyMartian]

If he's in defiance of a court order, then yes, an arrest warrant is a real possibility. Now maybe he plans an appeal, and I suppose he can seek an injunction against opening the gate pending that appeal, but since, on the face of it, he's acting in violation of California law, it's unlikely he'd get his injunction, and it's unlikely an appeal would be successful. So sooner or later, he opens that gate, or he ends up in a jail cell. It's his choice.

Re: Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

furthermore if it is still blocked and the law is on the side of the public it is; MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER, to solidify this in the mind of the culprit. FUCK his lifestyle accordingly to how he was already fucking other people over illegally.

Bring a gun and make things better.

Re:Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Then go down there and get pass the access way. If his security roughs you up, you can sue for millions.

Re:Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see the judge order the house/property be condemned, and turn it into a local park.

Re:Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

The gate should not be there...remove it then he is in compliance....if not bring in the state dozers and use an egress point through the middle of his house. Hes a prick....and those defending him are too. He is not in the right and never was. fuck him.

Re:Still blocked

[rossz]

I just want to see this fucker spend a few nights in jail. This case has been going on for years. When he bought the property, he knew there was legally mandated public access to the beach since it already existed. He's thumbing his nose at California law and trying to create his own private beach. fuck him.

Re:Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

That's your solution? Jesus what the fuck is it with people today. Arrest first, ask questions later. You all are a bunch of totalitarian pigs.

Under what basis? This man knows exactly what crimes he is committing, did before he broke the laws, during breaking the laws, and now after breaking the laws.

If he doesn't want the law to exist, he's DAMN lucky everyone else in the world doesn't go along with his plan, because the only thing keeping anyone from out right killing him is the law.

If the man wants to die and have that death be legal, it's no ones fault but his own.
If he cared at all about people not being totalitarian against him, then he wouldn't have been totalitarian against everyone else first and laughed in the face of the law.

People have been sent to life in prison for lesser violations of court orders.

I'd much rather be called a totalitarian pig, than be an actual hypocritical pig like yourself.
If someone came and took everything you owned, you'd be the first to whine like a little bitch and demand something be done about it, you totalitarian hypocritical fuckwit.

Re:Still blocked

[Solandri]

There isn't really a need need. My city just went through something similar (private developer locking gate to stairway through their development to a public beach). If the California Coastal Commission tells you to allow access and you refuse, they can fine you up to $11,250 per day (about $4.1 million per year). Granted a billionaire could stave off bankruptcy while paying the fine for hundreds of years. But if it came to that, I imagine legislation would swiftly be passed increasing the maximum daily fine or raising it geometrically the longer you don't comply.

Re:Still blocked

[djinn6]

That would suck for anyone who couldn't get their case heard quickly, which is something an individual has no control over. Plus in the US, the only way local laws are overturned is through the appeals process in a higher court. If the fine couldn't be stayed, nobody would ever appeal.

Re:Still blocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure they would appeal. They'd just comply with the court order, first.

Re:Still blocked

[Zontar The Mindless]

So you're saying that scofflaws shouldn't suffer any real consequences? Thanks for clearing that up for us.

Re:Still blocked

[careysub]

There isn't really a need need. My city just went through something similar (private developer locking gate to stairway through their development to a public beach). If the California Coastal Commission tells you to allow access and you refuse, they can fine you up to $11,250 per day (about $4.1 million per year). Granted a billionaire could stave off bankruptcy while paying the fine for hundreds of years. But if it came to that, I imagine legislation would swiftly be passed increasing the maximum daily fine or raising it geometrically the longer you don't comply.

What might be better is simply to apply the fine to eminent domain and acquire a nice wide access path for public property (or confiscate the land outright as a penalty).

Sorry sir, you don't own that path to the beach any more. Your estate is now split in half with public property between. But don't worry, we won't restrict you from crossing it.

About damned time

[drinkypoo]

Every time I drive past there it makes me sick to think that shitbird wasn't immediately run out of town. If I had lived in the area I'd have cut that lock every night.

Re:About damned time

[MangoCats]

In Longboat Key, Florida it was Arvida and similar developers who rolled up 14 miles of beach (99.5% of the island) and made it private. It went from virtually open - park anywhere you like along the 14 miles of road down to a couple of access points with about 14 TOTAL parking spots for the entire island, most of those on the extreme north end - during a period from the late 1960s to the mid 1970s.

Slowly, ever so slowly, they are prying open more public access points, I think they're up to about 50 parking spots now, but it's still multiple miles between them - with a solid wall of condominiums in-between. Mostly empty condos, I might add - owned by people who are rarely present. A dream for property tax income, really sucky if you want to access the beach and don't own a boat.

Re:About damned time

[Gussington]

I'm only guessing here, but I'm betting that being a billionaire he isn't locking the gate himself. He probably has some ex-special forces or UFC dudes as his private security, so good luck getting through them to do anything.

Re:About damned time

[Khyber]

Hah, most UFC people are so clumsy they couldn't handle the task of operating a key in a lock. Why do you think most of those fights end on the ground?

Re:About damned time

[sarbonn]

Every time I drive past there it makes me sick to think that shitbird wasn't immediately run out of town. If I had lived in the area I'd have cut that lock every night.

My understanding from another article I read about this case is that he had armed guards as well, so cutting that lock might have been difficult, if not dangerous.

Someone from CA explain...

[msauve]

So, "'The law of California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the "mean high tide line.'" That's normal admiralty law pretty much everywhere.

But, the reports I've seen require that a gate be opened and the public allowed to travel an access road across private land. That's a completely different thing.

Access to the beach is available from the water side - bring a boat. Why is a public easement required across private land? At the very least, that's a "taking."

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[alvinrod]

I'm not familiar with this particular case, but I'm guessing that the road was already there and may have already had an easement attached to it at the time of sale, in which case the new owner would still need to abide by it.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why is a public easement required across private land?

Because it's the fucking law, that's why.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Access to the beach is available from the water side - bring a boat.

Poor kids can't use my land! Let them bring boats!

You're an asshole who wants to be rich. Isn't that right, asshole?

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

By that logic i could build a dome over his property and suffocate him. He has access to the air by boring a tunnel into the ocean and taking Submarine up, after all.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[drinkypoo]

Martin's beach is a noted California landmark, and yes, access had long been open. This prick knew of its importance to the region when he bought it.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Access to the beach is available from the water side - bring a boat.

And if there are no publicly accessible piers within a hundred miles of the beach? How about the denizens of central LA who (as they must) own a car, but have _absolutely nowhere_ to store a boat? Isn't either one of those conditions de-facto denial of free public access to that beach and/or shoreline?

There are two important facts about the law:

* It is written as it is to minimize the impact on the person whose property faces the beach. All that is required is a small path for traffic from the nearest public road down to the shoreline.

* It has been law for more than _forty years_. A new home purchaser could reasonably be surprised by it if it were 1976, but not in 1990, let alone 2017.

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the earliest moment when both the deed and the law were simultaneously in effect, the deed became defective as it lacked a required easement. The billionaire needs to put in a claim to his title insurance company because that is what has happened here: there is a pre-existing claim that is valid and must be satisfied. The title insurance the guy paid when he bought the property will compensate him for any drop in value. That's what it's for; and they should have seen this coming.

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[mbkennel]

As it turns out, that is illegal in California. It's only that landowners need to keep an access path to the public beach. It's permissible for the legislature to distinguish suffocating people their home in dome and requiring an open access road.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Easements based on historical usage have been a thing in English Common Law for several centuries. In CA, like most US states, English Common Law precedents apply unless explicitly changed by legislative action.

Failure of the property owner to understand the law of the land is not a taking under the Constitution.

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Mod the parent up. It does not really matter what the title says. Reasonable evidence that there was ongoing access to the publicly owned beach is all that is necessary to prove the title was flawed.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

If all the land in front of the beach is private, then you cannot realistically get to the beach that the law says is public and you have access to. The public has already been screwed too many times due to loopholes like that, so this one actually has a provision in it to prevent it from becoming another complete mockery.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Waffle Iron]

Why is a public easement required across private land? At the very least, that's a "taking."

The public easement has always been required, so no owner has ever had exclusive rights to this type of land, and nothing has been taken. You can't "take" something from a person if they don't have it in the first place.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[ChrisMaple]

From 1980 to 1990 I lived in Los Angeles without a car, farther from the beach than central L.A.. Bus service to the beach is adequate, and a bicycle would also work. There's more than 20 continuous miles of beach open to the public and easily reachable from public streets.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[ubernostrum]

This is not California-specific. In common-law countries (the US is one), the one-two punch of land rights ending at a mean tide line, and a public right-of-way to access the sea, are literally *ancient*. As in, the common-law rights go back to the actual Byzantine Empire and have been inherited into legal systems descended from it, of which the US is one.

This is why the guy's trying all sorts of weird arguments in hope of seeing what sticks. IIRC his latest was trying to claim that the land he wants to close off shouldn't have been covered by this because of some random detail of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Most parts of the US which have tidal waters have basically the same rule to guarantee public water access from the land, and unless he can come up with something truly stupendous he's not going to overturn 1500-ish years of how common-law systems work. He's also going to have a hard time arguing for a taking here, since it's not like this is an unknown or new thing. Just as when you purchase land with any other kind of easement or right-of-way, that comes as part of the deal.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

listen...you cant block peoplefrom land with your land. If your land surrounds my plot you are REQUIRED by law to allow egress across your property. So no you do not know a damn thing about which you speak...prick.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[thegarbz]

At the very least, that's a "taking."

A taking from whom? The law isn't new.

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[Reverend Green]

Are you really that stupid, or just trolling?

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[doctorvo]

The previous owners ran a business. You don't acquire an easement when you enter a private business. That's because you acquire an easement only if you haven't been given explicit permission to enter a property, but you do so anyway and repeatedly.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

omg you're sooo stupid.

US (and western European law) does not come from the Byzantine Empire.

Roman and Holy Roman Empires, ok.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[dwywit]

Access to the beach legally predates and/or overrides grant of title to property adjacent to the beach. This usually means that local authorities are obliged to provide easements between street and beach, either through a land title, or as a public pathway between two titles. The actual application of this principle is left to your imagination.

Landowners trying to restrict access to public beaches in Australia are welcome to try. Fortunately our beachside councils are sensible that way. There's LOTS of access to most beaches.

Not so much where those local authorities approve 20 and 30-storey apartment blocks adjacent to the beach, thus blocking direct sunlight after lunch. Dickheads. Pure greed destroying one of the fundamental appeals of going to the beach. Who the hell wants a shaded beach when the afternoon onshore starts to blow?

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're responding to a claim the parent did not make. Learn to read: what he said was that the precedents of land rights ending at a mean tide line and of public access to the ocean were established in the Byzantine legal system and that our own laws regarding such matters descend from these precedents.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for bringing reddit into slashdot. We owe a tremendous amount of gratitude.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

At the very least, that's a "taking."

Yes, it is. Just not the one you think. The "taking" is the property owner taking the right of the public to get onto the beach.

Access rights, easements, etc. are very real legal things. Libertarians can't stand them, but then most things libertarians can't stand are things that benefit actual human beings of normal means so screw them.

Re: Someone from CA explain...

[drinkypoo]

It's illegal everywhere, whether you own the airspace over your lot or not you definitely own the right to control who may build a structure in it.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

'You can always move to Perth." - Dickheads

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

All true. But entirely circumstantial.

The entire coastline is public land. Why on earth would you not fight to defend that?

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

A prohibition against gay marriage was once the law and look where we are now.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[careysub]

Right you are! The only "taking" involved here is Khosla's attempt to steal a public easement.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bus service to the beach is adequate ... [and] there's more than 20 continuous miles of beach open to the public and easily reachable from public streets.

And what if -as I was proposing in my hypothetical-, the coastline was blocked for hundreds of miles? What if you had to go far outside of LA to rent a boat to come back in hundreds of miles to reach a particular "public" beach because all land routes to the beach are blocked by private property? Because the only public access to it is via water? Isn't that effectively blocking public access to that beach?

My hypothetical was responding to this comment:

> Access to the beach is available from the water side - bring a boat. Why is a public easement required across private land? At the very least, that's a "taking."

My hypothetical differs from the state on the ground in LA in a few aspects because the people who crafted the water and shoreline access laws were wise enough to see what could (and often would) happen if only providing free public access to a shoreline via water counted as providing public access. Had they not been so wise, there would be a great many beaches only accessible to those who could hire (or own) and pilot a boat. Many, many people don't fall in that category.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

You are not connecting your own dots there. The property is a physical piece of land. If one single person can testify they crossed that land for years to get to the public beach without asking permission, that is sufficient grounds for a judge recognizing an easement. The particular usage of the land by the previous owners really does not matter. "Oh, we ran a business so we ignored the guy with the surfboard under his arm walking through our parking lot" is not a counterargument, but additional evidence that the easement exists. The specific usage of land in no way automatically obliterate the customs recognized under English Common Law.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[doctorvo]

The particular usage of the land by the previous owners really does not matter. "Oh, we ran a business so we ignored the guy with the surfboard under his arm walking through our parking lot" is not a counterargument,

The guy with the surfboard under his arm walking through the parking lot has permission because it is a business that's open to the public. Customers to private businesses do not acquire easements.

If one single person can testify they crossed that land for years to get to the public beach without asking permission, that is sufficient grounds for a judge recognizing an easement

Even if an easement had come into existence that way, it would only apply to that person.

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell wants a shaded beach when the afternoon onshore starts to blow?

West coast, best coast.

Captcha: sunlit

Re:Someone from CA explain...

[Anonymous Coward]

Learn to read, yourself. The OP did in fact make such a claim. Perhaps he meant "Roman", not "Byzantine"?

Re:KILL the billionaire

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Venezuela's down thataway.

v
v
v

Re:KILL the billionaire

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Venezuela is all the way to the left; that's why their economy is in the tank.

Next up

[easyTree]

Rich guy eats bad donut...

Re:Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Upper middle class slashdotters bid for a chance to taste diarrhea from rich guy in the hope that his business skill will pass to them.

Re: Next up

[easyTree]

Working class guy laughs at the middle class antics and turns back to reality show ?

Re: Next up

[Anonymous Coward]

Assholes pretend to know anything about other assholes pretending to know anything about an asshole.

Re: Next up

[Reverend Green]

I suspect you are a bit off about Slashdot's demographics. But spot on about some folks' eagerness to lick billionaire ass.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[drinkypoo]

How you plan to lure him there?

In his defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

I want privacy where I poo too.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[murdocj]

Actually Venezuela is a populist dictatorship, similar to what trump is trying to pull off in the USA, that's why their economy is in the tank.

California vs. Arizona

[swb]

In Arizona, they would just rip the fence down.

My dad lived in a development in the foothills that abutted BLM land. They had large lots (20 acres minimum) and most lots extended down into the canyons. One guy decided he didn't want anyone in his canyon wash, so he drove pilings in and fenced it off with locked metal gate. Within his right, but his house was 100 feet or more above the wash and about a half-mile drive up the wash and back down the road to his house.

Within about two weeks, the pilings and gate he put up were *gone*. Someone with a powerful truck and/or winch had yanked them up and taken them away.

My dad said that around there, you just didn't block "public" access into BLM lands, and if you tried, they would knock the gates down. It was fruitless, one guy tried steel I-beams and found them cut off with an acetylene torch.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Anonymous Coward]

In Arizona the tooth fairy would show up and wave her magic wand over all the oceanfront property. Wait a second, that's totally impossible because there is no tooth fairy in Arizona.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Anonymous Coward]

THATS why there's so much oceanfront property in AZ, no wonder i got mine so cheap!

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey idiot BLM is public LANDs....you know like a beach is also land. He never said the ocean was there...are you stupid like the other fuckers here who seem to think they own all access to public lands....fuck you idiot.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Anonymous Coward]

In Arizona, they would just rip the fence down.

There needs to be a lot more global warming before we get to find out what would actually happen in this situation in Arizona.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[djinn6]

Dumbasses... should've used land mines instead.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[freeze128]

In Arizona, they would just rip the fence down.

Who is 'they'? The local government, or the civilian community?

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Khyber]

Both. I've yanked out plenty of "No trespassing" signs that were clearly on BLM land and LR2000 showed absolutely zero claims within 20 miles of the area. You just can't go throwing up signage on BLM lands without proper permit, generally by way of patented land or actual mining claims.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Z00L00K]

No trespassing on public land would make sense if there's a high risk of sinkholes or other unsafe things. But then it's good to supplement the sign with information about why.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Khyber]

BLM always puts a full warning. Most common ones I see are "Warning! No Trespassing! Hidden Vertical Mine Shafts!" or "Warning! No Trespassing! In Use For Ordinance Testing!" Then I will see the occasional recent mining claim sign, in which case you can walk through but not touch anything.

Re:California vs. Arizona

[Zontar The Mindless]

In which case, the signs would likely say DANGER - SINKHOLES, and not NO TRESPASSING.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[dbIII]

Their economy is in the tank because they have an economic monoculture and the oil price has tanked - a mistake all *isms can make, it's just bad management. See also things like Detroit depending on a single industry for examples.
Other problems though are a direct result of how the place is run.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah because you plan on being a billionaire someday, yes? Delusional young Republicans.

the guy is a f=ing turd

[f00zbll]

Not all rich people are evil assholes, but this jerk off definitely is an asshole to the power 1000.

Re:the guy is a f=ing turd

[PopeRatzo]

Not all rich people are evil assholes

Citation needed.

Re:the guy is a f=ing turd

[Anonymous Coward]

Not all rich people are evil assholes

Citation needed.

Warren Buffet seems chill.

Re:the guy is a f=ing turd

[drinkypoo]

Warren Buffet seems chill.

I'd be happier if he donated to a charity with better ROI than the Gates foundation, part of whose mission is maintenance of the status quo vis-a-vis IP law.

Re:the guy is a f=ing turd

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Palpatine also seems chill.

Re:the guy is a f=ing turd

[careysub]

Wish I had mod points for this.

Also - this whole billionaire tax-exempt foundation thing is a scheme to lock-in dead-hand control over a huge part of U.S. financial assets that will last in perpetuity. The actual disbursements from these foundations are lower than their annual accumulation, so they will grow untaxed without limit forever. It is no secret that the Gates Foundation spends money in ways that benefit Bill Gates personally.

Re:the guy is a f=ing turd

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Apparently he and Gates are good friends. I would want my friends to donate to my charity, even if it was less efficient.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[ChrisMaple]

Venezuela is economically crippled because it is a government by and for thieves, hiding under the rhetoric of Marxism. The vulnerability to petroleum prices is just window dressing.

From the Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

The law of California states that all beaches should be open to the public up to the "mean high tide line."

In other words, that land that you call a beach is actually part of the ocean. Seems reasonable to me.

Unamerican

[ChrisMaple]

This guy was born in India, and appears to think that the corruption that is part of society there works in America also.

Re:Unamerican

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy was born in India, and appears to think that the corruption that is part of society there works in America also.

Right. It's different corruption here (e.g. political campaign donations).

I've lived in SoCal all my life and....

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the most exclusive of beach front communities in Orange County MUST provide a PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN access path to the beach. Without exception. But if it is a private gated community then they can block vehicles from entering abd parking. But they still HAVE to allow EVERYONE who wants to walk through their neighborhood down to the beach. Also, there is NO so thing as a privately owned beach in California. They do not exist. That's why one of the many reasons why my state is the best. :) Don't bother arguing with me. If you've been here on vacation then you know I'm right.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[LynnwoodRooster]

Which industries is Trump trying to nationalize? And I haven't heard of Trump dissolving Congress and assigning all powers to his appointee on the Supreme Court...

Re:KILL the billionaire

[dbIII]

It's not window dressing it's the actual story. How it became the story may be because it is a government by and for thieves, but the crash of an economy that is almost entirely reliant on one thing is a lesson for everyone.

petty and stupid

[doctorvo]

You'd think that someone with a net worth of $1.5b wouldn't be so petty and stupid to cause himself such bad press.

Heck, the smart thing for him would be to turn the whole property into "Khosla beach", add some nice private facilities, and close it off temporarily for "private functions" on the couple of days that he actually might have time to spend there. Instant good press.

But as far as I can tell, Sun Microsystems attracted jerks like rotten meat attracts flies.

Re:petty and stupid

[drinkypoo]

Heck, the smart thing for him would be to turn the whole property into "Khosla beach", add some nice private facilities, and close it off temporarily for "private functions" on the couple of days that he actually might have time to spend there. Instant good press.

Well, no. It's illegal for him to close the right of way, period, whether he is there or not. The smart thing for him to do would be to fuck right off and move somewhere else because he is forever going to be known at a fuckbag. People will be taking a shit and throwing it onto his property, throwing beer bottles at his house and the like forever more. Especially when it comes to beaches, many Californians are passionate about public access.

Re:petty and stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Your idea is correct, but no, he can't close it off temporarily because he can't close it off at all: it's public land.

What he should do is make sure the access is adequate and that the locals enjoy their time on the beach. Put in 1 or 2 trashcans and pay for them to be emptied each day. Sure, he doesn't want it to become a draw-card and get too busy, but he can damn well enjoy some good publicity, be known as a good guy, and make the situation better for everyone involved.

I can't imagine a single thing he would want to do on that beach that he can't do with the public having access. The public don't "turn up and ruin things" to any where near the degree some people like to think.

Re:petty and stupid

[Billly Gates]

Heck, the smart thing for him would be to turn the whole property into "Khosla beach", add some nice private facilities, and close it off temporarily for "private functions" on the couple of days that he actually might have time to spend there. Instant good press.

Well, no. It's illegal for him to close the right of way, period, whether he is there or not. The smart thing for him to do would be to fuck right off and move somewhere else because he is forever going to be known at a fuckbag. People will be taking a shit and throwing it onto his property, throwing beer bottles at his house and the like forever more. Especially when it comes to beaches, many Californians are passionate about public access.

Californians are used to rich taking their beaches. Go try to find a public one in Malibu? If you get on the beach you will be prompted by security asking how you got here and arrested for trespassing or beat up by the rich locals for going on their turf etc.

In their mind they paid good money for it and it is their god given right. Hell, Nixon's former residence new owner has a cannon who shoots potatos at surfers who dare go on his beach.

Same in Florida. It maybe law but the developers are selling their homes with a promise of private or community beach access and feel ripped off when rift raft or strangers walk in front of their houses.

The trick now is owning the roads and putting up gates so the public can't drive to access the beaches even if they are public

Re:petty and stupid

[careysub]

And of course he does have a security staff. Just have them keep order in an unobtrusive legal way, if he thinks people are "spoiling the party".

Unfortunately what security guards are commonly employed for by rich beach-fronting home owners is to make visits to the public beach so unpleasant that people just leave.

There is no law against security guards constantly haranguing people with lies about "you are violating private property" if all they do is talk. But it sure ruins your day at the beach.

Re:petty and stupid

[doctorvo]

Well, no. It's illegal for him to close the right of way, period

So? I was suggesting he accept that and do something good for his fellow citizens.

The smart thing for him to do would be to fuck right off and move somewhere else because he is forever going to be known at a fuckbag

Take your own advice.

You need some background to understand this

[istartedi]

Before saying anything you should familiarize yourselves with the history of that beach. I was somewhat familiar with the area before the controversy. I never visited that beach, even when it was "open" because you had to pay a parking fee. I guess I could have parked on Hwy 1 and walked down without paying, but there are other beaches where you can get a lot closer without paying a parking fee.

The state itself may or may not charge a fee for lots or roads close to beaches. For example, Pigeon Point--no fee in the lot, and plenty of road parking right by the beach. OTOH, Francis Beach in Half Moon Bay charges.

So. It seems well established that they can charge for parking convenient to the beach, and for many years that's what the prior owners did.

I think this dude shut off walk-in access. If he did, that's plainly over the line. AFAIK, walk-in has been restored. What's interesting is the dispute about parking.

IIRC, the Ritz Carlton Half Moon Bay doesn't charge for beach access parking. You just tell the lot attendant what you're up to, and he directs you to a spot in the parking garage if they're available. I think they do that to spread good will in the community though--maybe it was a condition of the development permit.

In other words, when it comes to parking at convenient lots, it's all over the map. IMHO, the real question is "what's a reasonable parking fee?" and/or "Does access to the beach imply parking?" Followed by... if it turns out that *free* parking is a requirement for public access, then all the government agencies that charge could be sued too... but I don't think it'll go in that direction. A sane ruling seems like something that would bring us back to the status quo: free walk-in, reasonable parking fees comparable to what state parks charge.

Re:You need some background to understand this

[drinkypoo]

I think this dude shut off walk-in access. If he did, that's plainly over the line. AFAIK, walk-in has been restored. What's interesting is the dispute about parking.

Well, you're wrong. There is still a locked gate up across the property entrance. You can't park outside the gate, either, so you would need to get a fucking Uber or something to go to the beach. Until you have at least driven past the entrance (you will need to know where it is because that fuck also de-painted the sign, which is a classic California landmark) you probably do not have anything valuable to add to the conversation here.

Re:You need some background to understand this

[istartedi]

Well you're wrong, or the person they interviewed on the local radio a couple days ago who said they parked and walked in was lying.

I'm not a fan of the owner either, so chill out.

Re:You need some background to understand this

[drinkypoo]

Well you're wrong, or the person they interviewed on the local radio a couple days ago who said they parked and walked in was lying.

It's not that it's physically impossible, it's that it's not legal to park there. They weren't lying, they were just admitting to violating the law on the radio.

Re:You need some background to understand this

[istartedi]

I don't see any no-parking signs. As a general rule, you don't see no-parking signs on Hwy 1, so I think I would have recalled it. Google street shows no sign that I can see, and several cars parked in November 2016. The gravel area looks fairly decent, and a higher clearance SUV can probably handle the grassy strip.

Deport.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let Khosla fence off one of India's beautiful beaches.

Re:Not in Magnum PI

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot really needs a "LOLWHUT?!" moderation option.

Bad karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems he does not normally reside at his beach home so a tsunami, rogue stingray or some Poseidon misfortune unlikely to affect the karma on this issue

Barbara Streisand

[sycodon]

That loon has been trying that for decades and has gotten slapped down at every turn,. In fact, many rich Hollywood Liberals have tried to make the claim that the beach belongs to them.

Babes even had a hissy fit when commercial Satellite pics became available of her property and tried to have those removed.

Do the Kennedy's still have armed guards on "their" beaches?

Re:Barbara Streisand

[elrous0]

Do the Kennedy's still have armed guards on "their" beaches?

Not only that, but they tried to stop a wind farm from being built that might spoil the view from one of their many estates. If it were one of the common people trying to block a wind or solar farm, any number of Kennedys would of course be the first in line to condemn them as evil anti-environmentalists.

Re:Barbara Streisand

[Applehu Akbar]

I grew up there. In California, you don't mess with public beach access.

Re:Barbara Streisand

[Anonymous Coward]

But Vinnie Coleslaw is a Brahmin.
Not a Californian Dalit like you.
Come back when YOU have a $billion.

Re:Barbara Streisand

[ebvwfbw]

No. The Kennedy's pay to bring people now. Most people are like Kennedy - WHO?

I don't see a problem

[stabiesoft]

Fine him 1 billion dollars and see if he wants to keep it restricted. Still no, fine him another billion for each and every week he fails to comply with the law. I forget which country, but one in europe adjusts fines based on worth. Super rich are not bothered by laws unless you make it hurt like it does for the rest of us. Isn't that really the point of a fine anyway?

Re:I don't see a problem

[freeze128]

Aren't there actual "LAWS" that restrict the amount of fines? You know, so it doesn't bankrupt your common non-billionaire?

Re:I don't see a problem

[Zero__Kelvin]

Google "sliding scale" for your answer to what is being proposed by the OP.

Re:I don't see a problem

[stabiesoft]

Specifically both finland and switzerland can get you a 100K+speeding fine if you are rich. The poor pay less, much less. If a fine is meant to be a deterrent, and it is really, then the super wealthy can break the law with impunity with no real consequence here in the US. Of course it is not going to happen. As the story says, this billionaire is a friend of the left, so the cal gov will bend over to let him have his way. Much like in texas where right leaning billionaires get their way. As one of my friends says often, soon Mexico will be as corrupt as the US.

He needs an army of sharks wearing lasers

[Provocateur]

or sporting clipboards, asking swimmers to stay behind the cord

Re: KILL the billionaire

[Anonymous Coward]

Explain Brazil.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[Uberbah]

Their economy is in the tank because they have an economic monoculture and the oil price has tanked

Because the Saudi's have been overproducing for years in a price war. Which has been great as far as undermining their oil producing rivals like Venezuela, Iran and Russia, but they can't keep it up forever.

Other problems though are a direct result of artificial shortages and other US-backed manipulations

Fixed that up a bit. Even Obama couldn't keep a straight face when he announced sanctions against Venezuela, as the country is hardly a threat to the United States.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[Uberbah]

Venezuela is economically crippled because it is sill saddled with capitalism, and capitalists who collude overtly with the State Department and covertly with the CIA when they couldn't win at the ballot box

FTFY

Arrest him for theft and vandalism

[BlytheBowman]

For putting up that fence, plus $100,000 for every day the public was not able to access that beach. Though in an ideal world, this waste of skin would get a bullet to the head

I'm sure money can buy everything in India

[OneSmartFellow]

So I suggest Vinod head back to his homeland if he doesn't like how it works in California.

Otherwise, he needs to learn the California ethos.   I wasn't born there either but spent almost half my life there, particularly my formative years,  so I feel like a Californian.  I  remember what it was like in the 70s and 80s before all the asshats arrived and ruined it.

I'd love to see ithe go back to how it was.  Laid back, easy, slow, mellow.   I really miss California.   It's gone now but it could return if we educate dickheads like Vinod.

Obit

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere in the New York Times obituary department, awaiting Mr. Khosla's passing, is a draft obituary that begins, "Vinod Khosla, whose battle over coastline access..." His business accomplishments won't be mentioned until the second paragraph. This fight will be the only thing for which he is known or remembered by anyone other than family and personal acquaintances.

Re:KILL the billionaire

[dbIII]

Which has been great as far as undermining their oil producing rivals like Venezuela, Iran and Russia, but they can't keep it up forever.

Their production cost is very low so they can almost keep it up forever. Shallow, onshore in a small flat desert with easy access. We can't even match that in Texas letalone offshore or shale.

KHOSLA is actually POOR. Why he's FORCED TO STEAL

[MarcusOutrageous]

Vinodh Khosla is just a beachgrubbing douche. At that status/money level if one must still STEAL FROM THE PUBLIC he should be branded as a THIEF and STINGEY. Silicon Valley *hates* any insult that labels them acting less-than-magnanamous, or, god-forbid, so impovrished they cannot share resources. Gary Johnson, former 2 term Governor of New Mexico ran twice for President as a libertarian. He's the kind of libertarian that says the government shouldn't be in your bedroom and should be less invasive in your wallet. Smoke whatever you want, just don't drive. First time he ran as freemarkets Republican. Second time he *WAS* the actual Libertarian presidential candidate 2016. Rand Paul is libertarian as are a few others on the Freedom Caucus -- but they have to operate as Republicans due to our 2 party system, inevitable because of First-Past-The-Post voting. There *ARE* ways to donate to libertarians in politics.

Learning From Aristos's Examples

[MarcusOutrageous]

Aristos, this is an interesting debate. Can you provide an example or two of what you mean by someone who takes a short term 'liberty' position that results in long term loss of liberty? When I think about this first thing that comes to mind is 'Patriot Act' which was supposed to give us 'Freedom from Terror' but really has moved the government towards the police state. Next in mind is LBJ's great society. Generations later blacks are now more highly regulated than any other race group (more stop & frisk, greater incarceration, more out-of-wedlock mothers forced to buy gov't approved food via WIC program, lousy black youth employment rates) when pre 1950 both black marriage AND black youth employment rates where HIGHER than White rates. (see Economist Thomas Sowell for research summaries). Corporatism sucks too as well. Corporatism is where the gov't favors & protects corporations. That's what we have in the USA, not really capitalism. A really egregious corporatist example comes from Mexico where VOIP is illegal in to protect Carlos Slim's telecom monopoly. None of the above is freemarkets, classical liberal, or libertarian. Yet as I am human my knowledge base is limited by both scope and bias. So I would like to learn more. Can you give me some examples of how you're thinking about this so that I can better understand your position? Thanks! Rock on.

Re:Learning From Aristos's Examples

[Aristos Mazer]

@MarcusOutrageous I will try. See the post I just made to doctorvo parallel to your reply about mortgages. I am not confident that this discussion will go very far... the biggest problem I've had in the past in these discussions is that it is hard to point to real world examples of wide-spread libertarianism, so both proponents and opponents are left with hypotheticals, and it is easy for both sides to claim the other just isn't playing fair with the extrapolations. But we'll see. This is an intellectual bridge I've tried to build many times in the past, sometimes by myself, sometimes with a team of other progressive liberals helping out. I've never managed it. It's one of the things that concerns me most about the USA... some of these intellectual/cultural divides appear literally incomprehensible to bridge. (And this is frequently where a libertarian tells me "then you should let us live as we want and we'll let you live as you want" and the liberals (and the fascists, honestly) respond "but you live as part of our society and the way you want to live makes our society break down." And then the two sides glare at each other.

But I continue to try.

Re:Learning From Aristos's Examples

[MarcusOutrageous]

Aristos - I am going to friend you so I can respond by email. I redacted text below because it could dox me too prematurely for entrance of some ideas and my real identity into this block of the public square. [ORIGINAL POST BEGIN] I will review your mortgages post. I am interested in finding higher forms of rationality (including communication) with other thoughtful humans seeking to increase the quality of our decisions. You are correct that many opposing views are yet without bridges. Here is one of my solutions that is starting to gain some traction in assisting with American race relations. [ REDACTED] So far this linguistic tool is working very very well in beta. Although my job is in tech (at a sector boring to 9 out of 10 people) and we sell to government (which bores the remaining 1) my passion is in solving these bridging problems. I have numerous prior successes implemented -- however [ REDACTED ] and its related cultural linguistic pathologies are what matters most now where I can provide some impact. I will read your mortgages post. I look forward to being able to invoke the actual *meaning* of our words by creating tools parallel enough to the communication gap to create a usable bridge. This glare deluged 'Leftist vs. Libertarian' EconoState-chasm you speak of is one of my high priorities along with [ REDACTED ] overlaps highly with the EconoState-chasm. Valuable and I likely possess prior art to contribute. [ REDACTED ]

Lock Cutter

[MarcusOutrageous]

Drinky -- What kind of lock and what kind of gate? I mean -- *lots* of us have tools that can cut metal or open locks with degrees of stealth ranging from ninja through angle-grinder. Although a spark-filled flurry in a photo would be the picturesque one. A large part of this group are hackers and SOME will live in the area with a valid reason to be there if they are obtuse enough to attract authorities. Lots of hack whatever is hackable...higher status and robin-hood hacks are the MOST satisfying. Why isn't this gate being hacked on a regular basis? (Not speaking of myself of course. Hacking is ILLEGAL and I would NEVER EVER EVER DO IT I SWEAR. My dog swears too. Hell I don't even know nuthin' of the Linicks operating table or whatever its called. My penguin swears.)

What? Are you anti-lawyers or something?

[PlaynBass]

"In a law book which your dumb ass should've read."

If everyone did that (read the law books), a lot of lawyers would be out of work. Why are you so against lawyers, anyway?

(I'd be joking if it wasn't so true!)

Re:KILL the billionaire

[Whatever Fits]

And it is an economic monoculture because the government decided to appropriate all the businesses owned by foreign nationals/corporations so much so that any remaining ones fled in fear of having that happen to them. The government went on a spending spree with all their newfound cash and promptly went into crushing debt as oil prices dropped and they had no other income to prop up their dictatorship.

Maybe not $30 million

[Anonymous Coward]

But I would pay good money to punch Vinod Khosla in the mouth.

Explaining Libertarianism isn't Avarice

[MarcusOutrageous]

doctorvo - I appreciate your reply to Aristos. I engaged him in the discussion with the goal of discovering how to improve this specific dialectic to a place where it can be easily conveyed and understood that real (small l politcally) Libertarianism aka Classical Liberalism isn't evil snobbish rent-seeking regulatory-capturing money-grubbing pauper-stomping greed. He responded cooperatively so that I may better understand his position. The discussion topic, roughly paraphrased is, "Libertarian choices that champion short-term liberty ultimately result in permanent losses of freedom." Threaded below of course. Your reply was lucid and clear. I seek to understand the cultural pathology that equates libertarianism with negative traits, and thus reduces chances that entire classes of humans can learn about the personal and societal benefits of self determination. (WTF 'libertarianism' isn't a word in my spellcheck? Possibly due to again, cultural resources being choked off to libertarian memes) Anyway - I provided examples of my point to Aristos. He responded. I'm cueing you to the discussion because, in the interest of improving human rationality, it may be valuable for me to bounce some ideas off of you as I endeavor to solve this particular linguistic chasm. Which recurs over...and over...and over... As well I am also exploring the validity of the ideas I hold and seek to improve my positions where the facts do not support my current conclusions. Which is why I'm asking him to show me why I should adopt his position and doing same in return. Slashdot is comprised primarily of smart people who are more data-driven, math oriented and scientific-process using than the average human. I think there is lots of unexplored value in finding out why community members (including myself) hold opposing conclusions. I am particularly interested in finding out where I am wrong. That's really quite exciting. Probably the most exciting thing to me, at this time, about the Grand Central Terminal of Brains that exists here. Thanks.

Re:Explaining Libertarianism isn't Avarice

[doctorvo]

"Libertarian choices that champion short-term liberty ultimately result in permanent losses of freedom."

That's probably because the only thing that a free society can logically be replaced by is an unfree society. But that's like saying that health "results in" disease, because everybody who is healthy sooner or later becomes sick and dies. Liberty no more causes loss of freedom than health causes disease.

Progressives and socialists do get something else right: they observe correctly that liberty leads to inequality. What they don't realize is that societal wealth, liberty, and inequality are inextricably linked: if you try to reduce inequality, you necessarily reduce societal wealth and liberty along with it, and by "reducing societal wealth", I mean "making everybody poorer".

Vampires vs. Villagers

[MarcusOutrageous]

Aristos & Doctorvo - Thank you both for writing this. I read your remaining discourse AFTER responding to both of you. @Aristos you provided the examples I asked for. @Doctorvo, I think there is illumination starting to occur as to where a communication point might exist in this discussion.

I feel we are discussing whether Libertarianism is

Greed Fueled Money-Grubbing, Pauper-Stomping, Proletariat Oppressing, Rent Seeking, Regulatory Capturing, Monopoly Making conducted by Voracious Robber Barons + Self Interested Government Crony Fat Cats Conspiring in Smoke Filled Back Rooms on how to Rob the Public via Micro & Macroeconomic Larceny through a Racket of Laws & Taxation/Exemption Contrived to Entrench Protected Classes while Screwing the Little Guy & the Unskilled via Bureaucracy Enforced by Threat of Armed Violence from Private Armies as the Impovrished, Elderly & Infirm, possessing Zero Economic Value in the Oligarchic State must Necessarily Starve to Death Trapped in the Ghetto while a Permanant, Exclusionary Consortium of Dynastic Families, Statist Corporations and All-Consuming Conglomerates and Permanently Tenured Bureaucrats Worship their Criminally Syndicated & Inherited Advantages as but the Righteous Outcome of Darwinian Fitness, Believing with Religious Zeal that they are Fundamentally Improving Humanity as they Forever Benefit from a Wealth Endlessly Transferred to the Rich always at the expense of Everyone Else - Especially the Poor

vs.

Individually Empowering, Freedom Preserving, Wealth Creating, Social Mobility Encouraging, Job Creating, Playing Field Levelling, Small Business Friendly Open, Transparent & Unencumbered Freemarket where Unrestricted Association of Labor and Capital Competing to Meet will Feed, House, Educate & Uplift the most Humans & Fight the Fewest Wars while Providing the Highest Possible Quality of Life and Economic & Social Opportunity for the Proletariat, The Little Guy, Immigrants, Disabled, Minorities & Unskilled because an Abundance of Wealth is remains with The People who, Recognizing we live in a Common Society will Create Private Solutions for a Public Safety Net so the Impovrished, Elderly, Disabled and Infirm are not Left To Starve but instead are are So Safe from Cold Darwinian Animalism that many will even Find Ladders Emanating from the Safety Net Floor that Offer Upward Mobility & Rewarding Purpose because Value exists in Virtually Every Human and Recognizing & Rewarding that Value increases the Worth of All Humanity & Its Assets - Cultural, Intellectual and Physical - while a Lean, Focused, Citizen-Led & Term-Limited Government Taxes Lightly & Employs Force Sparingly to Prevent Violence, Preserve Individual Rights, Enforce Contracts, Protect Property, Invest in a Limited number of Infrastructure+National Interest Endeavors where Taxation+Regulation and/or State Run Enterprise is TRULY the ONLY Solution (i.e. National Defense, 20th Century Space Exploration, Clean Air Act) and will cease any such State Run Enterprise where Private Enterprise is Willing & Fit (i.e. Portions of National Defense, 21st Century Orbital Freight and Private Spaceflight, National Park Administration, Forest Fire Management, Grazing Land Supervision)

I think we can learn why our sides differ so much by summarizing this as

Vampires vs. Villagers

My above definitions of Vampires and Villagers are meant to encompass 80% of what each side of this debate feels. 80% should be enough of handle to figure out the meta of the disagreement. So before we move forward -- Aristos Pls fill me in on what's lacking in Vampires. I do not possess confidence in hitting 80% as I am still learning the borders of your position. Doctorvo, if you will, please let me know what i left out of the Villager that you think is pertinent to making this analogy meet thresshold of workability.

Thanks for helping me through this. I appreciate the discourse you both had previously which provided me a compass to guide us towards a possible analogy.