Compared to what oil barons and railroad tycoons did a century and a half ago, this is hardly anything.
Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
101–110 of 195 posts
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#102It 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:…
It's complex. Only a very rich aristocrat gives a shit about it though. Obviously why it's stood for 110 years.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#103It 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:…
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 parcels, and there's a law that can help to force a sale when the ownership gets too confusing.
Seems like the sort of law for billionaires wanting to have their own private beach.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#104If Zuckerberg is trying to dislodge residents from their homes, that's reprehensible. On the other hand, if he's merely trying to gain clear and unencumbered title to land that he's already bought and paid for, that's ... just common sense? Unfortunately the article doesn't really make it clear which scenario is operating here. The writer invokes the word "kamaaina," which a lot of folks here are interpreting as "Nat…
What the article doesn't mention is that we only got to this situation in the first place after centuries of nastiness and dirty tricks that deprived the native Hawaiians of their land in a similar fashion to the way the native Americans on the mainland were deprived of theirs. What is "legal" today is only "legal" because some rich white guys decided to make it so using methods that would horrify most of us today. But the reason that these methods are no longer used is not because the rich and powerful have developed a more refined sense of morality, it's because the populace has been subdued to the point where they are no longer necessary.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
He owns land that surrounds these land parcels.
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, land court cases in Palau are contentious and common.
Some of the high clan families resorted to charging rent to those who settled on what was traditionally their land, which seems somewhat reasonable than just evicting them, but this still causes some friction because even that isn't really that traditional either, it's not like, AFAICR, we had a concept of rent back then.
Moreover, we never traditionally had a concept of strong property rights or ownership, there are stories that our original contact with Europeans turned violent because my ancestors stole goods from visiting or marooned ships, not because they were thieves but because their concept "ownership" wasn't nearly the same as that of European tradition. To this day, when I visit my parents, my cousins and friends hanging out in my house would just take small things and sometimes not return them, and I would think nothing of it because that's socially acceptable and just how things are.
I think the point I'm making is that this story reminds me somewhat of Palau because it is an attempt to mold two cultures together in certain places where they aren't very congruent. It sounds like there were no "owners" of the land, no one had a title(s), they just lived there because their parents did and their grandparents did and so on. In Palau, people who culturally had no strong concept of ownership have to grapple with some families who do, and it would not surprise you to know that these traditional land-owners are today the wealthier and more politically-connected class, using an amalgam of two cultures, Palauan and Western to their benefit.
I understand how it is difficult here. One person just wants to buy land (in the abstract, Zuck is the sixth wealthiest human on Earth) and have a clear concept of ownership for him/er but they have to contend with people who might not. Like Palau, I don't really know the answer but it's just valuable to be mindful where these issues come from.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow thanks for sharing. I'm glad to see that an apocryphal quote can have a source backing it up empirically.
Would you rather have 0% ever thinking they'll be rich? That sounds like a terrible place to live.
There's nothing wrong with having aspirations per se. The issue is when these aspirations lead people to identify more with the upper class rather than their own class and voting against their own interests. For a very recent example, see the case of people who depended on the Affordable Care Act regretting voting for Trump. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-voters-didnt-t...) Also, you don't see something seriously wrong with the statement "Nineteen percent of Americans say they are in the richest 1 percent"?
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#107It 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:…
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…
I believe that he found people with a partial ownership in the land and bought that partial ownership. Now, as a partial owner, he can force the sale.
Having this law makes sense, because as ownership gets more diluted you would never be able to get everyone to agree on anything.
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#108Is 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.
It's a great idea in a level playing field.
But if half of the people are born on someone else's land, have to work multiple jobs to cover basic expenses, have no chance of getting good education without becoming debt slaves and get thrown under the bus if they ever get sick, then maybe, just maybe, the expression "personal responsibility" has completely different meaning for them from the meaning that the people born as land owners, and can enjoy free* (or very affordable) education and healthcare as well doors opening for them throughout their whole lives because of their name or relations.
(For a household making $2m or more per year, a $60k/year education is close to free.)
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#109It 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:…
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…
Billions bro the guy has unlimited money what does no one get about mark zuck? He has literally unlimited wealth and power HELLO
why is everyone in denial about it
Re: Facebook’s Zuckerberg sues to force land sales
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple divide-and-conquer. The 1% retain/grow their power by convincing 49.5% of us that the other 49.5% of us are the bad guys.
Your math is little wrong. 1%: The Politicians, Bureaucrats & Friends. 19%: The Rich paying with money. 80%: The Poor paying with freedom. Guess who takes shelter in tax havens like rich but at the same time pretend to be altruistic to/for poor.
Erm, not to be all factual and shit, but politicians generally aren't in the 1% until after they're out of office. There are exceptions of course (the Clintons, because of the sheer length of service and variety of positions they've each held) but being a politician doesn't actually pay that well. There are perks, but you won't get into the 1% on perks.
The 1% is primarily made up of people who have enough money that most of their income is passive, in the form of investment income, dividends, etc. Also it's worth pointing out that there's a couple ways of calculating whether or not you're in the 1% -- you can do it based on annual salary or net worth. The people who are _really_ in the 1% are there based on net worth, and it takes almost $9M in assets to get there.
I'd break your list down into 4 categories:
The 1% who can fund a politician's campaign, primarily through super PACs and other funding mechanisms that don't come with limits on the size of a donation.
The people who may look and feel wealthy (they may have a fancy car, a job that pays well, but also a lot of expenses and haven't passed the point where their money has given them enough leverage to trade it for time -- instead they're still trading time for money). These people are the next 5% or so, with a minimum net worth of $2M. They are also likely to be the scapegoats for the true 1%.
Next up are _some_ politicians (the ones with real influence -- your local mayor may or may not count, depending on the size of the city you live in. Your governor may or may not count, depending on the state you live in. Your House representative may or may not count, depending on how long they've been in office, which party currently controls the House and what committees they're on. There's your Senators -- hey! they probably count!) These are the 1%ers of politians -- the rest of them don't make a ton of money _and_ don't have a ton of influence. These guys are hoping to get cushy boardships, lobbying jobs, speakers fees, etc -- stuff that they're well-trained for by being a career politician.
Then you have everyone else... Roughly 90% of Americans, just trying to keep their heads above water, hoping they have enough money to pay the mortgage, the rent, their kid's college education, the electric bill, or what-have-you. They are translating their time into money, but have almost no economic mobility -- meaning they have almost no chance to join 1%, and will only join the 5% at retirement at best.