Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by khazhoux 3240 days ago
I can see his point of view, though: as a rich man, he should be able to do what he wants, and lay claim to this beautiful stretch of the Pacific Ocean.
2 comments

What if Bill Gates bought the entire coastline? How does that help society?

Society has relatively little to gain from letting the super rich buy up fundamentally scarce bits of land like this. Meanwhile making it public access means way more people can appreciate the beach. Not like this VC is on the beach most of the time anyways.

Pretty sure OP left off the <sarcasm> tags.
Hmm, not to say I disagree, but let's say hypothetically, instead of providing general public access to the beach, which is obviously a pity, the entire coastline was sold at the appropriate price. The money, in theory, could go into improving local infrastructure, etc, which may lead to an improvement in quality of life for people living in that area. I'm not saying that would happen, just entertaining the possibility that your proposed scenario could be positive.
It could, but once sold it might never again be accessible to the public.

I prefer the Scandinavian approach: Non built up land can be freely accessed by anyone regardless of owner in most cases, and the coast is by default protected against people building down to it in Norway at least. Dispensations do get given, but if you block access without applying for planning consent, it will be struck down.

The basis is simple: Restricting access to a scarce resource like the land is equivalent to taking away or liberty. This is a right we've had since time immemorial - in Sweden it's a constitutional right. In Norway it was not codified into law until the 60's as it used to be seen as so self-evident that it wasn't necessary.

Why stop there? As a rich man, he should be able to replace his failing liver by claiming yours.

Alas, he can't in either case, because we the people have created limiting the unchecked exercise of power.

Sure, there are laws limiting the totally unchecked exercise of power. Your example is too extreme, though.

In my case, I was being sarcastic... yet it's nearly true. His mega-wealth let him buy the oceanside estate to begin with, and then his mega-wealth lets him ignore fines. The laws against this abuse are (as evidence here) quite weak.

That's the thing about fines. To really be punitive, they should be indexed to the wealth of the offender.
Confiscate his land. Problem solved.
I know sarcasm is hard to nail down on the internet, but I thought that one was pretty clear.
You'd think so but I've met people who havr, in total seriousness, stated that a dollar of their money was worth more than 10,000 human lives and they shouldn't have to pay any taxes to help out other citizens. Some people truly believe that if you have more money, you are a better person
Unfortunately, the use of irony on HN often fails, because apparently we don't trust any more that the members here are intelligent and ethical.
Maybe I've spent too long here, but I have run across far too many advocates for the unchecked exercise of power by the powerful.