4 ms·

I guess I just don't understand why Vinod would risk his reputation and his historical legacy on this issue. It seems to me that he and everyone else on the pl

I guess I just don't understand why Vinod would risk his reputation and his historical legacy on this issue. It seems to me that he and everyone else on the planet would want to go down in history as a "good guy". Especially because he has the opportunity with so much money to just do the right thing. The concept that is most sad to me is how an individual can not see past their own nose, and not think about all of the other people, in this case surfers who would get so much enjoyment out of this access. The cool thing about life is we continue to learn from others mistakes. Clearly, we can all learn that in life the most important thing to do is always think about others and not about yourself first.

pzxc 12y ago
With all due respect, I don't think that is "clear" at all. If you don't think about yourself first, you won't be able to help anyone else.
- dreamweapon 12y ago
  Why? There's actually a fairly well established body of sociological research to this question. It falls under the general rubric of this term known as "Elite Deviance": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1381479.Elite_Deviance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1381479.Elite_Deviance
  - pzxc 12y ago
    Never heard of "elite deviance" before, can't figure out how it's relevant here from the first page of google results, and don't intend to purchase a book to find out, but... ... it seems self-evident to me that you have to get your own house in order before it's wise to devote resources to others. I can't imagine devoting time and energy to caring for the sick if you yourself weren't healthy. I can't imagine donating money to the poor if you couldn't feed yourself or your own family. etc Yet those are logical conclusions to the philosophy that "in life the most important thing to do is always think about others and not about yourself first."
    - krisdol 12y ago
      And yet I can imagine someone allowing others to use public beaches without first having their own private beach next to their mansion. How much do you help yourself before you have enough? It seems like many don't know when to stop.
    - dreamweapon 12y ago
      Sorry; my post was intended not to go under yours, but under its parent. As to relevance to the the question posted in that message: Just that the Martin Beach case seems to be an illustration of the fact despite that in general, the wealthy and powerful seem to feel they have a lot more lattitude in flouting various forms of what they deem to be mere "social convention" (you know, pesky things like zoning laws, or 150 years of legal interpretation of status Mexican land grants after California's admission into the Union, etc). So you can count on the fact that if you or I were to decide to squat some piece of public property (based on our feeling that it was really ours anyway), our actions would stand for more than a couple of hours before we got pepper sprayed, put in a chokehold, etc. But when a billionaire venture capitalist does it -- well the courts take 4 years to think about it before deciding that it was, heck, just a "misunderstanding" (as the judge in the Martins Beach case decided that Khosla's property manager acted in "good faith" when they decided to block access to the beach for 4 years without seeking a permit to do so).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

pzxc 12y ago

With all due respect, I don't think that is "clear" at all. If you don't think about yourself first, you won't be able to help anyone else.

dreamweapon 12y ago
Why? There's actually a fairly well established body of sociological research to this question. It falls under the general rubric of this term known as "Elite Deviance": https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1381479.Elite_Deviance https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1381479.Elite_Deviance
- pzxc 12y ago
  Never heard of "elite deviance" before, can't figure out how it's relevant here from the first page of google results, and don't intend to purchase a book to find out, but... ... it seems self-evident to me that you have to get your own house in order before it's wise to devote resources to others. I can't imagine devoting time and energy to caring for the sick if you yourself weren't healthy. I can't imagine donating money to the poor if you couldn't feed yourself or your own family. etc Yet those are logical conclusions to the philosophy that "in life the most important thing to do is always think about others and not about yourself first."
  - krisdol 12y ago
    And yet I can imagine someone allowing others to use public beaches without first having their own private beach next to their mansion. How much do you help yourself before you have enough? It seems like many don't know when to stop.
  - dreamweapon 12y ago
    Sorry; my post was intended not to go under yours, but under its parent. As to relevance to the the question posted in that message: Just that the Martin Beach case seems to be an illustration of the fact despite that in general, the wealthy and powerful seem to feel they have a lot more lattitude in flouting various forms of what they deem to be mere "social convention" (you know, pesky things like zoning laws, or 150 years of legal interpretation of status Mexican land grants after California's admission into the Union, etc). So you can count on the fact that if you or I were to decide to squat some piece of public property (based on our feeling that it was really ours anyway), our actions would stand for more than a couple of hours before we got pepper sprayed, put in a chokehold, etc. But when a billionaire venture capitalist does it -- well the courts take 4 years to think about it before deciding that it was, heck, just a "misunderstanding" (as the judge in the Martins Beach case decided that Khosla's property manager acted in "good faith" when they decided to block access to the beach for 4 years without seeking a permit to do so).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]