Hiring private security for that purpose is basically vigilantism, this should be illegal in any sane jurisdiction. Has anybody prosecuted this?
Being a "Malibu problem" doesn't really make this matter any less relevant. It's precisely this kind of being above the law feeling of the wealthy that's at the root of many much larger problems.
This is a bit hyperbolic. Vigilantism refers specifically to "an individual or group undertaking law enforcement without legal authority".
Not to defend the clearly overreaching actions of the Malibu homeowners, but hiring security guards to protect what you feel is your property is not vigalantism in any sense of the word.
A homeowner has every right to hire security guards for their property. At worst, the issue here is overreaching claims on the extent of their property – something that happens among even the unwealthy.
Vigilantism is based on using illegal methods to enforce the law.
Hiring a guard for land you don't own is using illegal methods to break the law. (Assuming the guard actually does anything.)
I see this as worse than vigilantism, and I find it really odd to see you explain it as less bad. I seriously doubt that the majority of these landowners are actually mistaken about who owns the beach.
I don't think you understood what "guard" meant in this scenario. The guards couldn't stop anyone from walking onto the beach. And an easement in this case means that the public can use the land without owning it. Public beach access is a requirement for building permits on the waterfront.
This isn't vigilantism. They're trying to mislead the public about their rights, not enforce some law with illegal methods. I'd be damned if any of our politicians were arrested for that, let alone some Malibu residents.
It depends on authority and proof. It is not vigiantism if the area is private and the guard is given authority by the neighbourhood association (or whoever owns/is in charge of the land).
While the wealthy being above the law is a problem, the larger problem is the arbitrary nature of the law and the arbitrary nature of its enforcement. People wouldn't have to hire private guards if the law wasn't enforced. The police would enforce the law if there was less of it wasted on things that moral people do (like smoking pot).
Often the rich are happy to have the police not enforce the law and to do it with private security instead. Private security reports directly to their employers, the police have more public accountability.
Also reduced property taxes mean less police for everyone, so you get the "I only pay for what I need" anti-tax rationalization of those who live in gated and guarded neighborhoods which is ultimately socially destructive.
I agree with your sentiment regarding arbitrary law enforcement and the huge waste of times it is to chase people smoking pot and similarly harmless things. However, you seem to imply (please correct me if I'm wrong) that this justifies the vigilantism. I find that idea to be very problematic on many fronts.
Is it vigilantism for you to stop me from walking into your house? That is the crux of my argument. If you, or a group of people, rightfully own land then you should be free to pay guards to stop people to enter it.
Being a "Malibu problem" doesn't really make this matter any less relevant. It's precisely this kind of being above the law feeling of the wealthy that's at the root of many much larger problems.