Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

staradvertiser.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#141

Post by mjlee »

rusanu wrote: post #128
rtpg wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the part I don't get here: What's the legal framework for allowing Zuckerberg to force a sale? Let's say 20 people own parts of the house in front of yours. It's confusing, so you whine a lot, and suddenly a public auction is triggered? At the very least, he must understand that he is _not_ the owner, so everything else is kinda moot right? EDIT: seems like he bought out certain percentages of ownership on these parc…

Being Hawaii though, I don't think he will get a private beach, though :) http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal-access-hawaii http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/beach-access/

He'll get pretty close. The terrain along the shoreline makes the beach in question pretty much inaccessible. It's not unusual in Hawaii to flaunt the law by making public access as inconvenient as possible by buying the surrounding land and removing roads/paths so people who do want access have to trek miles to the beach.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#142

Post by largehotcoffee »

jeswin wrote: post #124
abtinf wrote: post #50

It is clear that almost no one commenting here has actually read past the first few paragraphs of the article (if that). It is very well written and explain that this is an extremely complex issue. Property rights are the foundation of civil society. Due to variety of factors, Hawaii has destroyed property rights on some parcels due to degenerate laws and legal customs. Just consider one point raised by the article:…

I am surprised by the number of people who claim this is rich bashing. Indigenous people around the world have lived for centuries with widely different concepts of property ownership. In many cultures, once you reach a working age you build your house where land is available and do your bit (say farming, or crafts) towards a functioning society. There is no land ownership record, but rather it's based on trust. Once…

>it still deprives the unborn children of their rights

Hmmmmm

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#143

Post by Hondor »

disordinary wrote: post #40
curun1r wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why isn't that enough? According to the article, the owners of the parcels have the right to traverse the land he already bought. From the sound of the article, this is making a mountain out of a molehill. He wants his privacy and, thanks to bizarre land ownership practices in Hawaii, these parcels are fractionally owned by hundreds of individuals making it impossible to make a traditional offer. This legal process…

It's only Bizarre to you, it's not Bizarre to the people who own the property I'm sure. What's Bizarre is being forced to sell land that you've owned for generations.

Something I learnt from the Martin Shkreli drug price increase story is that if you're going to defend someone who's being abused, first see if they even exist. Even then, see if their culture and laws make this an actual horrible suffering or not. What this isn't is some poor low income native being forced out of his house that he inherited from his family on land that he grew up on.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#144

Post by edblarney »

noobermin wrote: post #105
edblarney wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's possibly more complicated - there's kind of a 'collective ownership' scheme whereby there are tons of people who 'share' ownership of pieces - many of the titles may be lost, people don't know they've effectively inherited them, some may be owned by deceased who have no identifiable heirs so the ownership is ambiguous etc. etc. etc..

I'm a pacific islander, not a Hawaiian, and while my culture (or rather my parents' culture, of Palau) has somewhat more well defined concepts of land ownership, it is was traditionally somewhat communal with families and clans owning land. It didn't help that in the aftermath of WWII our island was mostly in shambles, and people just set up shop where they could and eventually wound up on other families' land. Today…

"we never traditionally had a concept of strong property rights or ownership"

Yes, I completely understand that.

I guess what I was trying to say is that Zucks entire problem might boil down to a function of the 'collision' of those two kinds of cultures, as you put it, and the oddities of 'ownership' as they are transcribed from 'Pacific Islander' terms into 'Western legal terms' ...

In Canada we have similar issues with land management, particularly wherein there is resource extraction: the Aboriginal communities have some legal right to input, but how exactly they go about that as a 'clan' is kind of a grey area.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#145

Post by Hondor »

ryandrake wrote: post #59

> Now the Facebook CEO is trying to enhance the seclusion of his property [...] Enhance the seclusion, LOL. So, 700 acres on an island in the middle of the pacific ocean is not secluded enough. Of course, he'll win "because money", but what a sad story.

That's what money is for. So you can buy things you want. To do that you also have to give away your money to the person who used to own those things, so they win too. The reason he got so much money is because he gave a lot of other people things that they wanted and they gave him their money. There's nothing wrong with that - unless you think trade is wrong and we should all be self-sufficient hunter gatherers, or that people who work hard to serve others should not be rewarded for it.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#146

Post by chris_wot »

rusanu wrote: post #128
rtpg wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the part I don't get here: What's the legal framework for allowing Zuckerberg to force a sale? Let's say 20 people own parts of the house in front of yours. It's confusing, so you whine a lot, and suddenly a public auction is triggered? At the very least, he must understand that he is _not_ the owner, so everything else is kinda moot right? EDIT: seems like he bought out certain percentages of ownership on these parc…

Being Hawaii though, I don't think he will get a private beach, though :) http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal-access-hawaii http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/beach-access/

For someone who is so virulently anti-privacy, he's certainly strangely a very private person isn't he?

There is something I find very odd and unsettling about Zuckerberg. One day I think we will yet rue making him such a success.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#147

Post by Inconel »

jeswin wrote: post #124
abtinf wrote: post #50

It is clear that almost no one commenting here has actually read past the first few paragraphs of the article (if that). It is very well written and explain that this is an extremely complex issue. Property rights are the foundation of civil society. Due to variety of factors, Hawaii has destroyed property rights on some parcels due to degenerate laws and legal customs. Just consider one point raised by the article:…

I am surprised by the number of people who claim this is rich bashing. Indigenous people around the world have lived for centuries with widely different concepts of property ownership. In many cultures, once you reach a working age you build your house where land is available and do your bit (say farming, or crafts) towards a functioning society. There is no land ownership record, but rather it's based on trust. Once…

>Even if you get legal rights from each one of the current owners, it still deprives the unborn children of their rights.

Would you mind expanding on this a bit, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean? Does this only hold true for land or other types of private property as well?

With regards to land ownership, was it really solely based on trust, or servitude and force? I'm no expert on traditional Hawaiian land ownership but didn't all the land essentially belong to the King/Chiefs who then allowed others to use the land in exchange for payment or loyalty?

Also, how would you propose land ownership disputes be settled among indigenous communities who went to war with other indigenous communities? Didn't the unification of Hawaii by Kamehameha I involve forced annexation of other islands? Who does the conquered land rightfully belong to, the ancestors of the winning Hawaiian tribes or the non existent ancestors of those Hawaiians who were killed fighting unification?

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#148

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

chris_wot wrote: post #146
rusanu wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being Hawaii though, I don't think he will get a private beach, though :) http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/coastal-access-hawaii http://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/beach-access/

For someone who is so virulently anti-privacy, he's certainly strangely a very private person isn't he? There is something I find very odd and unsettling about Zuckerberg. One day I think we will yet rue making him such a success.

He claims he is pro-privacy, and that if people get into problems by sharing too much on social sites, it's their fault. He himself is not sharing too much.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#149

Post by Hondor »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #99
olalonde wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more of a knee jerk reaction to the "wealthy people are evil" narrative that is quite common in the media. Some people just read the headline and immediately assume it's another instance of this, whether they are right or wrong. Personally, this kind of article doesn't "gratify my intellectual curiosity" and I don't think it belongs on HN.

Of course, wealthy people are not evil. But maybe it just happens that in order to become wealthy, people more often than not have to repeatedly choose wealth over generosity, exploit other people, take advantage of resources that less privileged ones pay for without explicit consent. Also, it often happens that people who are already wealthy and possess more than what they and their children would need for comfortab…

The idea that rich people got rich because they screwed other people over is quite common but also a made up generalization. It's an excuse that people who worry about their own socioeconomic status make to feel better about themselves. "I'm poor but at least I'm not evil like those rich people.". Instead of searching for reasons why rich people are evil, why not just be happy with your own life? You don't need to be rich. Stop worrying about status and get on with whatever you enjoy.

Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales

#150

Post by HeavenBanned »

snowpanda wrote: post #84
_m8fo wrote: post #47

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…

>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. As opposed to inherently thinking anything rich people do must be evil? And that all your problems are caused by the "1%" ? Maybe most people just take responsibility for their own lives and their finances.

Or in other words: "Let them eat cake."

Your proposed solution is not feasible with the massively widening gap between the rich and poor in this nation.

Post reply on HN