Magnum Mania!

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I have never been sure. Does Robin own the King Kamehameha Club?

I remember Rick telling R.J. "For Robin's nephew, it's on the house, hell the house is on the house."

I always got the impression that Robin was a major share holder, or sat on the board of directors, but was not the owner.

Thanks for replying. Funny how it obviously isn't made clear who owns the club. It isn't Rick we know that because he was so scared about losing his job in I Witness.

I always thought that Robin Masters was one of the main shareholders, hence Higgins involvement.

I had the impression that Higgins sat on the board of directors, represeting Robin.

Apparently if you are an employee of Robin Masters the KKC offers all the free beer you want.

What I never understood was how the club can be private with an entrance from a public beach. It seemed like anyone could walk into the bar.

It's more a matter of getting served any food or drink. When I was younger, we would just wander into the closest yacht club to use the pool. The dock was wide open, as was the main entrance. There was never a problem as long as we looked like we belonged. To order food, the staff had to know you, or you had to prove membership. Maybe the KKC operated along the same lines??

With all beaches being public in Hawaii, its really easy to use any beach fronted facility. Suspect the KKC, it was probably as MPS says, when you ordered drinks or food, they either knew you or asked for proof of membership.

Old man Dollinger (The Curse of the KKC) started the KKC, for the people he loved, the people of Hawaii. If that was really the case, then how does Mr. Dollinger explain the exclusivity of the KKC?

I think people usurped his authority due to his senility....

Well, in way, yes.

He may have started the club as a way to give something to the people, but that doesn't mean it would necessarily be free and open. You could nonetheless still require membership fees, but without in any other respect limiting membership. Unlike some of those fancy shmancy exclusive membership clubs, with unspoken rules about who belongs, so that even with all the money in the world, unwanted people simply would never break through the entrance barrier.

I once lived in a very small town. It had one golf club. Anyone could belong, but they still had to pay to join. The fees were used to pay for the upkeep: repairs to the club house, utility bills, and of course, keeping the golf course green and groomed.

I rather imagined the King Kamehameha Club was similar. I'm sure that I'm idealizing it, of course, but I always imagined that it served all the people of the island, with no entrance barrier other than the annual fee. As with any club, you still would need another member, or even a couple of members, to vouch for you. It's true that such means could be used to preserve invisible barriers, but consider that they also helps to keep the rowdy, unruly, and otherwise unpleasant riff-raff out. (Such as Magnum and friends.) Whether this is genuinely democratic, or no different than any other exclusive club with the invisible barriers (ie no jews, no blacks, no women, no indigenous peoples, etc.) depends on your perspective. But surely, the club would've had every right to see to it that all members could afford to pay their share of the common upkeep costs. On that count alone, neither Magnum nor TC could've afforded membership.

Another way it might have been exclusive without otherwise limiting who could join would be if the number of members were limited. That is, no new members could join without an existing member dropping out. This would also serve as a way to keep the club's resources from being over taxed, so that overcrowding at certain times would never happen. If you consider that clubs, particularly golf clubs, are a way for the combined membership to enjoy their leisure hours without the bother of fighting crowds, then it makes perfect sense to limit the membership in some way. The club therefore would be a refuge for its members, and a sort of home away from home.

I can certainly see both sides of the argument. The democrat in me thinks such clubs should be open for all. The sybarite in me thinks that having a share in a private golf club, where I could enjoy amenities I wouldn't necessarily have in my home, and that are not readily available to the hoi polloi, would be delicious.