4 ms·

>The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away w

by eurleif 12y ago

>The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?

benjohnson 12y ago
Public access to beaches and waterways is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited: By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations. 2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men. 3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Also, we should strip citizenship from anyone who is not a Christian, and punish participation in pagan rituals as severely as murder. This is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.
  - KC8ZKF 12y ago
    It's not an appeal to authority. "Because Justinian said so, and he's emperor so he should know." is an appeal to an authority. But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      What is Justinian's argument? He doesn't actually mention the "commonwealth" at all. He merely appeals to the "law of nature". In any case, if there is some principle underlying Justinian's edict, what is it? How did he determine that the sea is part of the "commonwealth", but that a mountain or someone's house is not? This is hardly explained in the given quote.
      - KC8ZKF 12y ago
        This doesn't really answer your question, but I think it's interesting to note that Institutes of Justinian are doing two things here. First, they are announcing to the Romans that the seas and running waters are part of the commonwealth. Second they are making the seas and running waters part of the commonwealth. They are simultaneously making a declaration and changing the world to fit that declaration. In short, seas were part of the commonwealth because Justinian said so. An <ahem> appeal to authority. But an appeal that Justinian made, not benjohnson.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    He did answer the question: This has a very long historical precedent. That we continue to accept some historical precedents as good, but have discarded others is not at all odd, and does not invalidate the historical importance placed on access to waterways just because the same people also had lots of ideas we consider idiotic today.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      If "a very long historical precedent" were sufficient to justify a policy, it would also justify the policies you wish to discard.
      - vidarh 12y ago
        I have not suggested they were sufficient to justify a policy, nor does the reference to Justinian appear to have done so. A long historical precedent is however sufficient to explain it's modern day existence, which is what happened here. You appear to have an uncanny ability to read far more into messages than what were intended.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
nouveaux 12y ago
Beaches should be viewed like a national park, and it should be a right granted to man. It should be granted as a right because it allows man to connect to nature, and can be seen as a benefit to society.
jrapdx3 12y ago
Let's put it this way, the question could be turned around, would you have no public property? Would it be satisfactory to have no public parks, monuments, museums, even streets, or other amenities? Of course not. Cities, states, regions need to preserve public spaces for the public good. The beach is a rare and precious natural asset that can't be duplicated, so logically ought to be open to the public. Once you've seen the Pacific Ocean from most anywhere in the Upper Left Coast you'll know it's beautiful and inspiring. Furthermore, it's an important recreational resource and since ancient times a source of food for many people and remains so to this day. Despite having many differing political points of view in our state, AFAIK no one has ever suggested closing off beach access to the public. If such ideas were broached at the state level, I expect it would set off quite a loud and negative reaction.
vidarh 12y ago
Land is a limited resource in general, but special land features are both more desirable and important to people than others, and more scarce, and have a long history of special treatment, and so we tend to place special emphasis on securing access to certain types of land. There's also no need to do away with private property to guarantee access. Consider the principle of Freedom to Roam [1], which is today most protected in Scandinavia, but used to be more widely recognized (and have in fact in recent years gotten more recognition, with the expansion of legal rights in the UK) Basically, when I grew up in Norway, everyone expected that we were free to walk in any forest, access any beach, and in general have unfettered access to nature, irrespective of property rights to those areas. This includes protections to prevent property owners from blocking access. Trying to limit such access is pretty much seen as morally similar to theft. The modern justification is that any restriction of access is a substantial limitation of the freedom of the public, and that if you wish to maximize freedom, you must limit the ability of property owners and find a balance that protects their ability to secure their home and business and protect their privacy but without taking away public freedoms that predates even our written laws. (In Sweden, this right is even part of the constitution) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
tim333 12y ago
>What's so special about beaches? For one thing they usually abut the sea which is generally public access. In the UK we have no private beaches. Seems to work fine. You don't get many protesters saying won't you please think of the billionaires.
lmm 12y ago
Land can't really be private property in the usual sense. You can't take it with you, and using it is pretty much always going to impact other people (in a way that really isn't true of normal property). We already have the notion that land "ownership" is different from ordinary ownership (e.g. compulsory purchase laws). The argument for private ownership of land is usually that it makes it possible for people to invest in long-term improvements to the land, e.g. building houses there, or irrigating it for agriculture. But that doesn't really apply to beaches; most of us think that beaches provide more value to society when they're public than if you built houses or grew crops there. So yes, beaches are special - they're unusually valuable as public property, relative to their value as private property.

by eurleif 12y ago

>The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe. What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?

benjohnson 12y ago

Public access to beaches and waterways is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited: By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations. 2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men. 3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Also, we should strip citizenship from anyone who is not a Christian, and punish participation in pagan rituals as severely as murder. This is an ancient idea - Institutes of (Emperor) Justinian in the 6th century are often cited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.
- KC8ZKF 12y ago
  It's not an appeal to authority. "Because Justinian said so, and he's emperor so he should know." is an appeal to an authority. But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    What is Justinian's argument? He doesn't actually mention the "commonwealth" at all. He merely appeals to the "law of nature". In any case, if there is some principle underlying Justinian's edict, what is it? How did he determine that the sea is part of the "commonwealth", but that a mountain or someone's house is not? This is hardly explained in the given quote.
    - KC8ZKF 12y ago
      This doesn't really answer your question, but I think it's interesting to note that Institutes of Justinian are doing two things here. First, they are announcing to the Romans that the seas and running waters are part of the commonwealth. Second they are making the seas and running waters part of the commonwealth. They are simultaneously making a declaration and changing the world to fit that declaration. In short, seas were part of the commonwealth because Justinian said so. An <ahem> appeal to authority. But an appeal that Justinian made, not benjohnson.
- vidarh 12y ago
  He did answer the question: This has a very long historical precedent. That we continue to accept some historical precedents as good, but have discarded others is not at all odd, and does not invalidate the historical importance placed on access to waterways just because the same people also had lots of ideas we consider idiotic today.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    If "a very long historical precedent" were sufficient to justify a policy, it would also justify the policies you wish to discard.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      I have not suggested they were sufficient to justify a policy, nor does the reference to Justinian appear to have done so. A long historical precedent is however sufficient to explain it's modern day existence, which is what happened here. You appear to have an uncanny ability to read far more into messages than what were intended.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

nouveaux 12y ago

Beaches should be viewed like a national park, and it should be a right granted to man. It should be granted as a right because it allows man to connect to nature, and can be seen as a benefit to society.

jrapdx3 12y ago

Let's put it this way, the question could be turned around, would you have no public property? Would it be satisfactory to have no public parks, monuments, museums, even streets, or other amenities? Of course not. Cities, states, regions need to preserve public spaces for the public good. The beach is a rare and precious natural asset that can't be duplicated, so logically ought to be open to the public. Once you've seen the Pacific Ocean from most anywhere in the Upper Left Coast you'll know it's beautiful and inspiring. Furthermore, it's an important recreational resource and since ancient times a source of food for many people and remains so to this day. Despite having many differing political points of view in our state, AFAIK no one has ever suggested closing off beach access to the public. If such ideas were broached at the state level, I expect it would set off quite a loud and negative reaction.

vidarh 12y ago

Land is a limited resource in general, but special land features are both more desirable and important to people than others, and more scarce, and have a long history of special treatment, and so we tend to place special emphasis on securing access to certain types of land. There's also no need to do away with private property to guarantee access. Consider the principle of Freedom to Roam [1], which is today most protected in Scandinavia, but used to be more widely recognized (and have in fact in recent years gotten more recognition, with the expansion of legal rights in the UK) Basically, when I grew up in Norway, everyone expected that we were free to walk in any forest, access any beach, and in general have unfettered access to nature, irrespective of property rights to those areas. This includes protections to prevent property owners from blocking access. Trying to limit such access is pretty much seen as morally similar to theft. The modern justification is that any restriction of access is a substantial limitation of the freedom of the public, and that if you wish to maximize freedom, you must limit the ability of property owners and find a balance that protects their ability to secure their home and business and protect their privacy but without taking away public freedoms that predates even our written laws. (In Sweden, this right is even part of the constitution) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

tim333 12y ago

>What's so special about beaches? For one thing they usually abut the sea which is generally public access. In the UK we have no private beaches. Seems to work fine. You don't get many protesters saying won't you please think of the billionaires.

lmm 12y ago

Land can't really be private property in the usual sense. You can't take it with you, and using it is pretty much always going to impact other people (in a way that really isn't true of normal property). We already have the notion that land "ownership" is different from ordinary ownership (e.g. compulsory purchase laws). The argument for private ownership of land is usually that it makes it possible for people to invest in long-term improvements to the land, e.g. building houses there, or irrigating it for agriculture. But that doesn't really apply to beaches; most of us think that beaches provide more value to society when they're public than if you built houses or grew crops there. So yes, beaches are special - they're unusually valuable as public property, relative to their value as private property.