4 ms·

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

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).

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).