61–70 of 195 posts
Basically doing the state's work for them, getting rid of that state's antiquated cop-out law.
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think. Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind…
Surely his lawyers informed him of the situation when he bought it. In Hawaii (or the US in general) can people own beaches below the high tide mark? Surely it's impossible to have 100% seclusion anyway as people can land by boat when the tide is low and enjoy at their leisure?
So his property is adjacent to a land reserve so it is much more secluded than just the land he owns. He is building a massive wall in front of the house that is obstructing some of the views of people on the other side of the street which they are not happy about (you can google to see it) and many of the houses are now for sale. As for the beach front, by law all beaches in Kauai are open to the public. However... his property is on a hill and it appears that many people plant these extremely thick bushes that create a thick thorned wall of shrub (many dozens of feet wide) that prevents access (in addition to requiring you to walk up a steep slope). Just getting down to the beach from the public access point took 15-20 min.
That said, I don't think the beach can be accessed by boat efficiently (very rocky once you get past the sand) and swimming in it is very dangerous. For those of you who have not visited, there are very aggressive undertows in Kauai that can easily kill a kid or novice swimmer.
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think. Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why isn't that enough? Who is to judge how much is and is not enough? Do you want an international tribunal allocating a "fair and equitable" amount of square meterage of various quality levels of real estate to individuals?
Yes, please.
You could argue some of the land parcels in question are owned by growing numbers of family members with each new generation, and that therefore it's likely some (even most) owners wouldn't utilize the land. However, it's also interesting to digest this situation alongside Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined. Zuckerberg owns 700 acres of Kauai[2]. Why isn…
> You could argue some of the land parcels in question are owned by growing numbers of family members with each new generation, and that therefore it's likely some (even most) owners wouldn't utilize the land. Interestingly, there's a similar "dilution of ownership" in FOSS projects. Unless the project is operating under one of the nonprofits that foster/require copyright assignment for contribution, the IP of a FOSS…
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think. Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind…
You could argue some of the land parcels in question are owned by growing numbers of family members with each new generation, and that therefore it's likely some (even most) owners wouldn't utilize the land. However, it's also interesting to digest this situation alongside Oxfam's report [1] on 62 people accumulating more wealth than half the world's population combined. Zuckerberg owns 700 acres of Kauai[2]. Why isn…
Ted Turner would say that's not enough.[1]
[1]https://qz.com/615048/these-are-the-10-biggest-landowners-in...
Is there a historical precedent for those above the peasants, but still below the king, to constantly rationalize and serve as king apologists? I notice an interesting trend with a large chunk of the discussion being centered towards why [rich person's] [behavior] is not [as bad] as you think. Maybe it's because the king enables those above the peasants to retain that position? It's really interesting, actually. Kind…
Surely its nothing compared to Govts with multi-trillion dollars in (extorted) revenue because thats what have been my observation.