It's also a horrible business practice for his VC fund. As an entrepreneur there's no way I would want to work with Khosla ventures. He just comes across as an asshole and a bully in this fight.
Beaches and rivers belong to all of us.
Beaches and rivers belong to all of us.
And therein lies the rub. Many entrepreneurs will not care about stuff like this because his money is still green. The Uber CEO just the other day referred to the Kashoggi killing as a "mistake". Adam Neumann grew up in Israel but is happy to take money from the same pot KSA uses to fund extremist groups, and publicly claims that MBS and Jared Kushner (!) will save the world.
For some people, Greed > everything.
Have a great day!
Didn't say it was everyone, gave two examples of two well-documented individuals, and said that this would be true of "some" people.
A lot of people even take Chinese money, even YC opened China office for a while, which they closed a couple of days ago.
This seems like an arbitrary distinction. What makes you think this and not something like "all geographic features belong to all of us"? What makes beaches and rivers so special that rights suddenly don't apply?
Owning land merely means being the last in a line of people who enriched themselves on the backs of others by taking common property and depriving everybody else.
This tax is essentially paid to the public to compensate them for being excluded from the land. The tax moves up as the value of the land increases, so idle landowners do not capture the value themselves, and may be forced to sell to people who will put it to more productive use.
That's just scratching the surface, though!
Rivers are more complicated than other geographic features because what you do upstream can affect me downstream so it makes sense to have some more rules around them, or even treat them as public.
At some point over a thousand years ago, some judge decided it was in the public's best interest that ships be allowed to beach themselves on the nearest toshore/bank without fear of consequence.
(Which is why the high tide line makes sense, as far as where to draw the line.)
They didn't want captains to hesitate if a boat was in distress.
Similarly, sailors getting off a distressed ship shouldn't fear consequences leaving a beached ship, and walking along the coast to the next port.
It's the same logic as a broken down car's driver being allowed to walk down the shoulder of the interstate highway to get to the next exit for help.
This right of passage came about due to interest of public safety; it had nothing to do with public "ownership" of the shoreline, especially for the purposes of enjoyment or recreation.
Now, you could argue it should be the public's right to enjoy all beaches recreationally, but that would require a separate political (as opposed to judicial) process, and would/should be considered a public taking (expropriation), where the land owner has a right to compensation at Fair Market Value, plus expenses.
But that's not what anyone here is arguing for.