The Sean Parker Wedding Is the Perfect Parable for Silicon Valley Excess

I do think it's up to Mr Parker how he spends his money and while I think $10m for a wedding seems a bit daft to me that's partly because I don't have $1 billion in the bank; at least he's spreading it around, and I respect him for just paying the fines instead of litigating the matter or attempting to evade it via an offshore business address (although in a case like this, it would be relatively easy to 'pierce the corporate veil' and litigate against the individual whom the corporation exists to benefit).

On the other hand, just because you're very wealthy doesn't give you an automatic right of purchase to things that have been designated as 'not for sale.' You're arguing for a private right of eminent domain - because an individual has the money and the willingness to spend it, should that confer the right to purchase something others (individually or collectively) do not wish to sell? I don't think so.

[1] http://www.trafficticketsecrets.com/speeding-ticket-news-fin...

I wonder if it had been a more prominent natural area, such as Yosemite Valley or Muir Woods or Yellowstone where he decided to build his castle. Surely he could afford whatever fines would be levied anywhere, but the public outcry would have been far more prominent, the beauty of the areas well-known and understood and agreed-upon.

These are places we have mutually determined to protest and hold sacred in our country. The National Parks and Forests, especially in the West, where there is some notion that the natural land—the wilderness—is above the petty desires of human folly. The green that grows trumps that which is printed, and no man can override it.

I grew up summers in Yosemite, in the high country, where in two days you can hike to places that perhaps no man has ever set foot. There is something sacred about that, not in a religious way but in a sense of truth and place and knowing the world which produced you by whatever means.

I know a grove of trees and a stream there. They is as nondescript and unremarkable as this one, except that they are absolutely remarkable for their beauty. If anyone built a castle there, I'd personally assist in bringing them to justice, and personally assist in restoring the land to its natural state. I'm thankful that the protection of the National Park and surrounding wilderness areas are present to prevent this sort of destruction in at least certain regions.

I'm not saying this is the ultimate slight against nature; far from it. It's a small thing. But it shows a lack of respect and carelessness that need not be rewarded, and in this case, I think the punishment and disrespect directed toward this event is entirely valid. We cannot prevent every use of the land, but we can encourage respect and understanding. In this case there was no respect and no understanding—especially not of riparian habitats and stream management—those regulations are there for good reasons and you can't pick and choose haphazardly whether you follow them.

If you've ever been to Big Sur, you know it's a special place, regardless of the imaginary borders we may or may not choose to lay down in symbolic protection. I'm happy that however small this infraction might have been, it will be met with fines and public humiliation. Silicon valley excess? That's up for debate, but who cares? It was dumb and disgusting.

I'm pretty surprised that there hasn't been an uproar over it yet. This is the first I've heard of it. Good on Madrigal.