3 ms·
This is a bit of cultural inertia that I don't understand. An accident of history could have easily made the debate over private ownership of mountaintops. Afte
by chroma 12y ago
This is a bit of cultural inertia that I don't understand. An accident of history could have easily made the debate over private ownership of mountaintops. After all, why should we let rich people restrict others from experiencing the beautiful views at the tops of mountains? Or the sense of achievement one gets from having hiked to the top?
Instead of being so absolutist, why not impose high property taxes on such lands? The revenue collected can be used for things that more than offset the harm caused by private ownership. And it wouldn't be hard to set taxes at a level such that only a fraction of mountaintops and beaches would be privately owned.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- nemo 12y agoWhile there's no clear benefit to society for private ownership of beaches, there is clear harm - cutting off access to an ocean which isn't privately owned. It'd be a horrible precedent to privatize beaches, since the profit motive would provide incentive slowly sell them away until normal people would lose access to a very valuable recreational area for swimming, exploring, and hanging out in a public space just so a few rich pricks could enjoy the space without all the rabble. Give wealthy people an inch and they'll buy a mile. Also, the surfers would beat anyone senseless who tried that crap, so it's a pointless debate.