Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by strbean 2351 days ago
> Who the owner is should not cloud the argument.

Fair point, but...

> On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around.

This, by law, does not exist in any form in California (unless the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).

This is simply a case of someone flaunting the law.
1 comments
kops 2351 days ago
> (unless the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).

And there I see why he has hopes. If it is legal on a lake then someone would wonder why not on ocean. Rather than asking the nice people on internet one might as well go to a court of law.

Why are people angry that he went to court. Where I come from people settle these kind of questions in less civilised ways. Court is better i think.

link
chrisdhoover 2350 days ago
Some argue, Nial Ferguson comes to mind, that private property rights and rule of law are what has brought success to civilization. It is funny reading this thread. Your post pointedly reminds us that we could live under regimes that have no qualms in seizing our property. I’m reminded that in the US our founders wrote of life, liberty, and happiness. There was an earlier version, life, liberty, and property.
link
strbean 2351 days ago
As a tech billionaire, he should know how to do a simple internet search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=california+private+beaches

link
kops 2351 days ago
#1. Internet is no longer the source of truth. I can buy it by CPC or CPM.

#2. Within the first paragraph of the first hit on search results, a policeman is enforcing the restriction. I would be encouraged to dig in if I were in a similar situation instead of being intimidated.

#3. I am not on either side. Just watching and weighing in from far away as an indifferent observer.

link