5 ms·
I think you missed this part: "Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s c
by rebootthesystem 9y ago
I think you missed this part:
"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
- hyperliner 9y agoSo it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed. Or is there a difference?
- mnglkhn2 9y agoIf we are of the opinion that everything should be private, then why not privatize Central Park?! What could go wrong if some poor kids will never get to see the beach? It makes it even more of an incentive to work hard, am I right? /sarcasm The truth is that the bigger the disparities between rich and poor the more violent the environment gets. So, let those poor kids access to the beach and you'll be able to enjoy your wealth.
- chroma 9y agoNobody in this thread is arguing that all beaches should be private. I'm arguing in favor of privatizing a tiny fraction of coastline, taxing the hell out of it to pay for other social programs, and keeping the rest public.
- greglindahl 9y agoI look forward for your initiative to change the California constitution to appear on the ballet. Until then, maybe we should obey what the courts say the constitution means?
- chroma 9y agoI remember people saying this to me in 2009. They were arguing against my position that same-sex marriage should be legal.
- arkitaip 9y agoComparing same-sex marriage to private beaches for the ultra rich is fucking gross.
- chroma 9y agoNobody is doing that. I'm talking about bad arguments, not bad policies. Also, read my comments. If anything, my proposed idea would reduce the number of de-facto private beaches and increase wealth transfer to the less fortunate.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- chroma 9y agoI don't think that's your true reason for supporting a ban on private beaches. Until the courts struck it down, California's constitution also banned same-sex marriage. I don't think that 5 years ago, you would have argued against gay marriage because of what was in the state constitution. If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
- Retra 9y agoIs that the argument you are actually making in this case, or are you just throwing out hypotheticals to be argumentative?
- biocomputation 9y ago>> If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed. If we're talking about laws being conducive to human flourishing, then the law is perfect as is, and in fact, should have even more teeth to make it easier to enforce. The current law is designed for the exact purpose of human flourishing. Specifically, the flourishing of ALL the citizens of California and visitors thereto. The law, as is, prioritizes the flourishing of millions of people over the flourishing of a very few extremely wealthy individuals. This is a textbook example of a good law.
- johnmarcus 9y agoRight, but currently what is lawful is also the most conductive for human flourishing. Hence, it should be enforced, not changed.
- chroma 9y agoNobody here is proposing privatizing the entire coast. Apparently I hold the most extreme views in this thread and my example was 2% of the coastline. Do you think things would be worse if 98% of the coastline was public and millions more in tax revenue went to social programs?
- 9y ago