Hacker News Reader

Comment by chroma | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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of your opinions about the morality of the law, for same-sex marriage, the law was being enforced before it was repealed.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.

This is a textbook example of a good law.

Right, but currently what is lawful is also the most conductive for human flourishing. Hence, it should be enforced, not changed.

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?

Why only 2% of the coastline? once you start allowing it, everyone is going to want to privatize their beaches, and it won't stop at 2%.

Is that the argument you are actually making in this case, or are you just throwing out hypotheticals to be argumentative?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com