4 ms·

Hold on, he paid $2.5 million in fines over what those photos depict? I think CCC is missing a 'Р'. (edit): Here's a interesting profile of the guy leading th

by uvdiv 13y ago

Hold on, he paid $2.5 million in fines over what those photos depict? I think CCC is missing a 'Р'. (edit): Here's a interesting profile of the guy leading this bureaucracy: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/09sfcoastal.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/09sfcoastal.html?pagewa...

raverbashing 13y ago
Well, the bill for the whole thing was 10Mi (Which is probably change for Sean "do you know what's cooler than a million dollars" Parker) Yes, it's probably excessive, but maybe not all the pictures are there
michaelt 13y ago
A $2.5 million fine is nothing to a guy with an estimated $2.1 billion fortune [1]. If we don't want the rich to flaunt the law with impunity, the find should be a hundred times larger - that way it might actually act as a deterrent. Of course, you could argue that we don't care if the rich can commit certain offences with impunity. Perhaps we've signalled that by legislating a fine rather than imprisonment for this offence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parker
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    I am not sure whether it was in France or England before the industrial revolution when a nobility could get away with running over a peasant with a carriage only with a fine. It did not end well. The only way the rich can live with the others in stable society if there are a lot of things money can't buy.
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    Firstly, quantifying actual damage to the environment is actually really hard. All the money in the world can't revive an extinct specie for instance. Secondly, I don't like the stance you defend : fines aren't a price to pay to do whatever we want, there are to dissuade people to act in a way society don't want you to act. People are fined when they violently rob or physically attack others, this doesn't mean money buys you the right to randomly punch people in the teeth. (and to follow through: that's why I believe fines should be proportional, which could be the case here) edit: I just looked at your profile and saw you certainly must know a thing or two about laws and justice so I am pretty sure you have a more subtle point of view than what is reflected in your post and my counter-argument in my second point. Looking forward to it.
    - calinet6 13y ago
      Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
    - grimtrigger 13y ago
      In theory, you could take the fine and use it for park restoration or expansion of the park. If thats true, than why not just take the fine and be happy? That would leave the environment in better shape and give someone a temporary job fixing it. I don't know enough about ecology to know if its possible
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        Using the fine for expansion and not simply restoration implies punitive damages.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    So it would be alright to do $1K damage to your jaw if I'm willing to pay for it?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
      - pessimizer 13y ago
        Why would consent be required? I don't recall any consent being granted for the wedding. If you didn't consent, should I only be responsible for paying for your medical bills and missed work? Should billionaires be allowed to walk down the street kicking children as long as they throw a few bucks on their prone, sobbing bodies afterwards - like a cartoonish Dickensian nightmare?
      - venomsnake 13y ago
        The trees did not consent. Or the park authorities.
  - yardie 13y ago
    By this logic speeding fines shouldn't exist since nothing is actually damaged.
king_jester 13y ago
> I think CCC is missing a 'Р'. Ah yes, because having requirements for a permit before modifying certain locations that are a shared public resource totally makes California the Soviet Union.

by uvdiv 13y ago

raverbashing 13y ago

Well, the bill for the whole thing was 10Mi (Which is probably change for Sean "do you know what's cooler than a million dollars" Parker) Yes, it's probably excessive, but maybe not all the pictures are there

michaelt 13y ago

A $2.5 million fine is nothing to a guy with an estimated $2.1 billion fortune [1]. If we don't want the rich to flaunt the law with impunity, the find should be a hundred times larger - that way it might actually act as a deterrent. Of course, you could argue that we don't care if the rich can commit certain offences with impunity. Perhaps we've signalled that by legislating a fine rather than imprisonment for this offence. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Parker

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- venomsnake 13y ago
  I am not sure whether it was in France or England before the industrial revolution when a nobility could get away with running over a peasant with a carriage only with a fine. It did not end well. The only way the rich can live with the others in stable society if there are a lot of things money can't buy.
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  Firstly, quantifying actual damage to the environment is actually really hard. All the money in the world can't revive an extinct specie for instance. Secondly, I don't like the stance you defend : fines aren't a price to pay to do whatever we want, there are to dissuade people to act in a way society don't want you to act. People are fined when they violently rob or physically attack others, this doesn't mean money buys you the right to randomly punch people in the teeth. (and to follow through: that's why I believe fines should be proportional, which could be the case here) edit: I just looked at your profile and saw you certainly must know a thing or two about laws and justice so I am pretty sure you have a more subtle point of view than what is reflected in your post and my counter-argument in my second point. Looking forward to it.
  - calinet6 13y ago
    Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
  - grimtrigger 13y ago
    In theory, you could take the fine and use it for park restoration or expansion of the park. If thats true, than why not just take the fine and be happy? That would leave the environment in better shape and give someone a temporary job fixing it. I don't know enough about ecology to know if its possible
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      Using the fine for expansion and not simply restoration implies punitive damages.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  So it would be alright to do $1K damage to your jaw if I'm willing to pay for it?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
    - pessimizer 13y ago
      Why would consent be required? I don't recall any consent being granted for the wedding. If you didn't consent, should I only be responsible for paying for your medical bills and missed work? Should billionaires be allowed to walk down the street kicking children as long as they throw a few bucks on their prone, sobbing bodies afterwards - like a cartoonish Dickensian nightmare?
    - venomsnake 13y ago
      The trees did not consent. Or the park authorities.
- yardie 13y ago
  By this logic speeding fines shouldn't exist since nothing is actually damaged.

king_jester 13y ago

> I think CCC is missing a 'Р'. Ah yes, because having requirements for a permit before modifying certain locations that are a shared public resource totally makes California the Soviet Union.