5 ms·

This is an uncharitable and condescending take, although it does follow a sadly pervasive rhetorical pattern. Essentially it erases the question of whether thi

This is an uncharitable and condescending take, although it does follow a sadly pervasive rhetorical pattern. Essentially it erases the question of whether this might be a case of protecting the fundamental rights of our society from erosion, and reduces the problem to the immediate material circumstances. With all of that difficult nuance and caution gone, anybody who disagrees with the foregone conclusion is just a poor and stupid rube.

luckydata 7y ago
What about my fundamental right of enjoying the public natural beauty of my state?
- homonculus1 7y ago
  It's perfectly valid for you to argue in defense of that right, even that it trumps property rights if that's what you believe. What's not okay is to say that the people siding with the issue's other concerns are dumb greedy idiots who shoot themselves in the foot because they can't understand sharing.
  - strbean 7y ago
    Every person in the United States has had the right to access any beach in California for almost 50 years. To act like this case represents an "erosion of property rights" is disingenuous. Next we'll be talking about "eroding the rights of people to buy the ocean".
    - WillPostForFood 7y ago
      Not exactly. There is a right to be on the beach up to the mean high tide line, (except government owned/controlled beaches), but there is no guarantee of access, which is the issue here, and in places like Malibu colony.
      - strbean 7y ago
        There is a guarantee of access. See [PRC Division 20 Ch3](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=2. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...) Particularly: > Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. This is an access point that has been used by the public for decades.
- cronix 7y ago
  Why do you consider it a fundamental right to be able to go on someone else's private property, even if it was allowed public usage in the past? Maybe CA should have passed some sort of beach front protection like Oregon did in 1967. Nobody can own the beach. It's all public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Beach_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Beach_Bill
  - learc83 7y ago
    California already has such a law. It's in the state constitution.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Would such a right entitle me to be able to camp out on your property? Back yard? Forest behind your backyard? Forest 10 miles away from the nearest dwelling? This isn't a fictitious question either, because some countries do have such laws (with some level of exception for actual places of dwelling). At the core is the notion of being able to own something, which itself is something we feel is simple because of how common we engage in the act, but which philosophically is far more complicated to deal with than people give credit (even more so when one considers nature gives no sanctity to the body). In general governments have 'good enough' laws that make enough people happy without getting to the real philosophical questions, but in doing so leave open edge cases which have unsatisfactory answers because the philosophy cannot be reconciled with the practice.

luckydata 7y ago

What about my fundamental right of enjoying the public natural beauty of my state?

homonculus1 7y ago
It's perfectly valid for you to argue in defense of that right, even that it trumps property rights if that's what you believe. What's not okay is to say that the people siding with the issue's other concerns are dumb greedy idiots who shoot themselves in the foot because they can't understand sharing.
- strbean 7y ago
  Every person in the United States has had the right to access any beach in California for almost 50 years. To act like this case represents an "erosion of property rights" is disingenuous. Next we'll be talking about "eroding the rights of people to buy the ocean".
  - WillPostForFood 7y ago
    Not exactly. There is a right to be on the beach up to the mean high tide line, (except government owned/controlled beaches), but there is no guarantee of access, which is the issue here, and in places like Malibu colony.
    - strbean 7y ago
      There is a guarantee of access. See [PRC Division 20 Ch3](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=20.&title=&part=&chapter=3.&article=2. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...) Particularly: > Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. This is an access point that has been used by the public for decades.
cronix 7y ago
Why do you consider it a fundamental right to be able to go on someone else's private property, even if it was allowed public usage in the past? Maybe CA should have passed some sort of beach front protection like Oregon did in 1967. Nobody can own the beach. It's all public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Beach_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Beach_Bill
- learc83 7y ago
  California already has such a law. It's in the state constitution.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Would such a right entitle me to be able to camp out on your property? Back yard? Forest behind your backyard? Forest 10 miles away from the nearest dwelling? This isn't a fictitious question either, because some countries do have such laws (with some level of exception for actual places of dwelling). At the core is the notion of being able to own something, which itself is something we feel is simple because of how common we engage in the act, but which philosophically is far more complicated to deal with than people give credit (even more so when one considers nature gives no sanctity to the body). In general governments have 'good enough' laws that make enough people happy without getting to the real philosophical questions, but in doing so leave open edge cases which have unsatisfactory answers because the philosophy cannot be reconciled with the practice.