"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."
So it's the right to bear arms in the US Constitution, but that does not stop us from wondering whether it is archaic and whether it should be changed.
If we are of the opinion that everything should be private, then why not privatize Central Park?!
What could go wrong if some poor kids will never get to see the beach? It makes it even more of an incentive to work hard, am I right? /sarcasm
The truth is that the bigger the disparities between rich and poor the more violent the environment gets. So, let those poor kids access to the beach and you'll be able to enjoy your wealth.
Nobody in this thread is arguing that all beaches should be private. I'm arguing in favor of privatizing a tiny fraction of coastline, taxing the hell out of it to pay for other social programs, and keeping the rest public.
I look forward for your initiative to change the California constitution to appear on the ballet. Until then, maybe we should obey what the courts say the constitution means?
Nobody is doing that. I'm talking about bad arguments, not bad policies.
Also, read my comments. If anything, my proposed idea would reduce the number of de-facto private beaches and increase wealth transfer to the less fortunate.
I don't think that's your true reason for supporting a ban on private beaches. Until the courts struck it down, California's constitution also banned same-sex marriage. I don't think that 5 years ago, you would have argued against gay marriage because of what was in the state constitution.
If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
The law existed before the property was bought. And regardless of your opinions about the morality of the law, for same-sex marriage, the law was being enforced before it was repealed. This law isn't being enforced.
>> If what is lawful differs from what is most conducive to human flourishing, it is the law that should be changed.
If we're talking about laws being conducive to human flourishing, then the law is perfect as is, and in fact, should have even more teeth to make it easier to enforce.
The current law is designed for the exact purpose of human flourishing. Specifically, the flourishing of ALL the citizens of California and visitors thereto.
The law, as is, prioritizes the flourishing of millions of people over the flourishing of a very few extremely wealthy individuals.
Nobody here is proposing privatizing the entire coast. Apparently I hold the most extreme views in this thread and my example was 2% of the coastline. Do you think things would be worse if 98% of the coastline was public and millions more in tax revenue went to social programs?
"Public access to Martins Beach, and to all land seaward of the mean high tide line in California, is guaranteed in the state’s constitution and mandated within the Coastal Act of 1976."