[nyxxie]

I couldn't care less about this rich person's beach nor the people who want to surf on it, but I do care about the property rights issue at play here and how it intermingles with popular perception and treatment of "rich people" (a relative term that, for most people reading this, almost certainly is applied pejoratively to them by those who have less than they do). I don't like the idea that someone feeling entitled to something I own factors into the question of control over that thing -- I worked and paid for it, I should get to do what I want with it. It seems to me that this simple principle is thrown out when the owner is deemed "rich", which is frightening to me.

> To what benefit to ones self can you possibly point? I worry that tolerating the entitlement of the many over the rights of the few will result in a degrading of those rights. It's this dude's beach today, what about a website that I suddenly charge for tomorrow? Or hey, lets be realistic here, what about my future beach when that aforementioned website makes me my billions :)

[geebee]

I agree with you generally about property rights and "rich"people, though I'm not sure, based on this thread, if you know what is actually happening in this particular case. In California, you can't use private property to prevent people from reaching the ocean past the median tide line, which is public land by the state constitution.

Every bit of this was in place and well understood when Khosla purchased this land. The easement already existed. This isn't as situation where the government is coming in and seizing someone's private land, it's simply enforcing the easement that has existed for the last 100 years.

I apologize if you are aware of all this and are making a narrower point, that property rights shouldn't stop mattering because the person who owns it falls within the category of "rich people". However, there are all kinds of land use laws (another is "freedom to roam"[1]) that predate and preclude certain types of ownership. In other words, you can own property, and you have broad rights to do "what [you] want with it", but if you purchased it under conditions that were reasonably knowable at the time you made the purchase, it doesn't make sense to complain about it later.

Lastly, yeah, there is a problem here with rich. We're talking about a Silicon Valley billionaire showing up and denying access to a beach that the surrounding community had access to - as guaranteed by the California constitution - for the last 100 years. I'd say Khosla created his own popular perception of "rich" people in this case. It's the sort of thing were I can image other "rich" people cringing, like, dude, Americans still don't resent the wealthy, what are you doing here.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

[nothal]

It's not the billionaire's beach. He has no legal right to the beach front which is guaranteed as public by California law. I don't think your second point is reflective of this situation and I think your first is only somewhat reflective of the formerly public road.

[Swenrekcah]

> I worked and paid for it, I should get to do what I want with it.

When it’s a house or a table or a bicycle shop, this approach makes sense and I agree with it.

When it’s land or natural resources, it is perfectly sensible to place some general restrictions on what people can do. Those pillars of our existence were here a million years before the current owner and will be there for millions of years afterwards. The entire society depends to a lesser or greater extent on land and natural resources. It is irresponsible for society to allow the owner to do anything they want with it.

Now that’s not to say that nothing should be allowed, but for instance the right of travel for people that don’t cause the place harm in doing so, espesially if it is to their homes, should really win over the right of any individual to close of access to a working road for a place they never even go to.

I don’t hold strong views on this case in particular, but I felt compelled to rebut the general idea that land and natural resources are ‘property just like any other’.

[arcticbull]

“Rich people” are quite rightly held to a higher standard in their actions because of their means. Vinod can go surf on any beach he wants, even if he can’t get wrongful exclusive access to this one, but his housekeeper who has equal right under the law is constrained by their means.