Hacker News Reader

Comment by josephpmay | Hacker News Reader

Haven't watched this specific video, but from what I've read previously he's suing so that the courts can determine who owns the land so he can fairly pay them. Many people own tiny slices of land that they don't have any practical use for (because of how Hawaiian land gets passed down through generations), and Mark owns the vast majority of the island, so he's trying to fairly compensate the remaining land owners.

Also, he apparently dropped the lawsuit after the uproar.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/01/27/zuckerbe...

View on HN

I'd just note that, while I'm nowhere near an expert on the topic, a big part of the problem generally is a fundamental cultural disconnect. Native Hawaiians had a more communal ownership model that appears to strike mainland US culture as fundamentally illegitimate. It tends to manifest now when a billionaire is annoyed that there's no one seller to go to when they want their island. In the past, it was plantation owners.

This is of course nothing new; one argument for displacing mainland Native Americans was that they didn't grok the virtues of private ownership of land. (In reality, the rationalization never matters; in such things, might quite literally manufactures right.)

> Native Hawaiians had a more communal ownership model that appears to strike mainland US culture as fundamentally illegitimate

You're projecting agreement where there isn't any. The State of Hawai'i could pass a law placing these lands into public trust. Hell, the current owners could get together and do that themselves. That isn't happening because some want to keep the land, some people want to sell, and some might want something else, but nobody is sure who can do what with what.

> one argument for displacing mainland Native Americans was that they didn't grok the virtues of private ownership of land

The courts, here, are trying to assign ownership to the natives. This is strengthening their claims to their land, not diminishing it.

I mean it's based on established rule of law - which is codified with documentation and process.

That communal ownership doesn't have record keeping or otherwise would seem to be unnecessarily unbalanced towards those with family right. Isn't the idea of family right and inheritance something that people rail against in the states eg. eliminating things like inheritance tax etc... are very popular among some groups because "just because you were born into it doesn't mean you earned it."

Seems to be some cognitive dissonance here.

> so he can fairly pay them

You make it sound as if he is doing them a good deed...

The idea is they don't want their land to be owned by anyone other than the native people... hence the small portions of land split among the indigenous and handed down through generations.

Greed is the primary issue here, and I totally understand their view on it. America has been destroying their island by commercializing a majority of it.

> The idea is they don't want their land to be owned by anyone other than the native people... hence the small portions of land split among the indigenous and handed down through generations

The legal way to do this is for those many owners to put their land in a private or public trust, either to be held indefinitely for public non-commercial use or held in the name of the trustees and their beneficiaries. Trying to do this informally is inefficient and silly.

The way you describe it, trying to do it formally sounds inefficient and silly.

> trying to do it formally sounds inefficient and silly

Irrespective of how things sound, there is a reason every modern civilization develops a system for recording land ownership early on. Land disputes are historically nasty. Where records are non-existent, they get violent; where records are bad, they jam the courts. There are many systems varying aims; our American one is among the more flexible in the world.

Flipped around, if these ownership claims had been properly recorded a generation ago, the current fiasco wouldn't have happened. Better late than never.

> The idea is they don't want their land to be owned by anyone other than the native people...

Isn't that racist?

This sounds like something that needs to be addressed by the State of Hawaii, not a private individual litigating in a court.

The problem isn't that he's paying them, it's that he took the land before paying. That's like someone taking your car without your permission and sending you a check in the mail later for a fraction of it's actual worth.

I got $5 "for free" from the Apple ebook class action settlement, I would rather not have gotten the money and the lawyers gotten less. Sure it's not rational, but it's how I feel.

I am sure the islanders would rather not be forced to part with their land, so a billionaire can live in a private paradise, than receive a fair, or even better than fair forced sale price.

You can't just take land and then negotiate a "fair price"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com