>The concept of a "private beach" would be strikingly alien and unnatural in any ethical universe.
What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?
What's so special about beaches? Or do you want to do away with all forms of private property?
There's also no need to do away with private property to guarantee access. Consider the principle of Freedom to Roam [1], which is today most protected in Scandinavia, but used to be more widely recognized (and have in fact in recent years gotten more recognition, with the expansion of legal rights in the UK)
Basically, when I grew up in Norway, everyone expected that we were free to walk in any forest, access any beach, and in general have unfettered access to nature, irrespective of property rights to those areas. This includes protections to prevent property owners from blocking access. Trying to limit such access is pretty much seen as morally similar to theft.
The modern justification is that any restriction of access is a substantial limitation of the freedom of the public, and that if you wish to maximize freedom, you must limit the ability of property owners and find a balance that protects their ability to secure their home and business and protect their privacy but without taking away public freedoms that predates even our written laws. (In Sweden, this right is even part of the constitution)
By the law of nature these things are common to mankind, the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the shores of the sea. No one, therefore, is forbidden to approach the seashore, provided that he respects habitationes, monuments, and buildings which are not, like the sea, subject only to the law of nations.
2. All rivers and ports are public; hence the right of fishing in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men.
3. The seashore extends as far as the greatest winter flood runs up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Juris_Civilis
If you want to appeal to authority rather than answer the question, pretty much any Roman emperor makes an odd choice.
But here, Justinian's argument is given. Seas and rivers are part of the commonwealth, so nobody should be denied access.
In any case, if there is some principle underlying Justinian's edict, what is it? How did he determine that the sea is part of the "commonwealth", but that a mountain or someone's house is not? This is hardly explained in the given quote.
In short, seas were part of the commonwealth because Justinian said so. An <ahem> appeal to authority. But an appeal that Justinian made, not benjohnson.
That we continue to accept some historical precedents as good, but have discarded others is not at all odd, and does not invalidate the historical importance placed on access to waterways just because the same people also had lots of ideas we consider idiotic today.
A long historical precedent is however sufficient to explain it's modern day existence, which is what happened here.
You appear to have an uncanny ability to read far more into messages than what were intended.
Of course not. Cities, states, regions need to preserve public spaces for the public good. The beach is a rare and precious natural asset that can't be duplicated, so logically ought to be open to the public.
Once you've seen the Pacific Ocean from most anywhere in the Upper Left Coast you'll know it's beautiful and inspiring. Furthermore, it's an important recreational resource and since ancient times a source of food for many people and remains so to this day.
Despite having many differing political points of view in our state, AFAIK no one has ever suggested closing off beach access to the public. If such ideas were broached at the state level, I expect it would set off quite a loud and negative reaction.
The argument for private ownership of land is usually that it makes it possible for people to invest in long-term improvements to the land, e.g. building houses there, or irrigating it for agriculture. But that doesn't really apply to beaches; most of us think that beaches provide more value to society when they're public than if you built houses or grew crops there.
So yes, beaches are special - they're unusually valuable as public property, relative to their value as private property.
For one thing they usually abut the sea which is generally public access. In the UK we have no private beaches. Seems to work fine. You don't get many protesters saying won't you please think of the billionaires.