Get off my lawn

[EgonSpengler]

The notion of land ownership is absolute crap (to be more brutally frank than is probably good for me; or I really feel). It's like owning air, or the sea, or something.

I kind of agree, on an emotional level, but then The Tragedy of the Commons hits me over the head with its club. I think City, State and National Parks are a decent solution, at least here, where we can hire park rangers and scientists and hunting experts to manage them for us. ymmv, of course.

 

[bhsup]

So if on this massive wilderness land of yours there are berry bushes, bushes which you will never eat from, never harvest from, and otherwise do not care exist (or may not even know exist), and someone went to pick berries from them, not damaging or harming anything else in the process, you would have a problem with that? Why? And please, give me something other than "because the law says so" and "because it's mine."

Again, this hurts you and impacts you in absolutely no way at all. This is not your garden they're taking from, not your farm crops which you use for sustenance or income, they are depriving you of nothing at all.

You asking me to answer but then refusing me the perfectly legitimate answer of "because it's mine" doesn't really fly with me.

Well, then a 17 year old on a snowmobile mangles themselves while trespassing and you get to pay the bills.

Yeah, ain't that grand. I also love how you're responsible if someone drowns in your pool after trespassing to swim there.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The notion of land ownership is absolute crap (to be more brutally frank than is probably good for me; or I really feel). It's like owning air, or something.

Thomas Paine agreed with you.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You asking me to answer but then refusing me the perfectly legitimate answer of "because it's mine" doesn't really fly with me.

Is that the highest cognitive ability you're capable of? I doubt it. Or is "might makes right" literally the only justification your require? If that is the case, then would you willingly accept the fate of it being forcibly requisitioned or repossessed from you?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Are the national parks insufficient? One thing we Yanks sometimes fail to appreciate is just how big and empty our country is, in places. I think Europe totals a similar landmass, but with twice the people, and a lot of areas long since exploited for their resources (I've heard/read that freshwater fish are nearly gone from Europe, for example).

Incidentally, a Scot is among the most important of Americans when it comes to our wild lands. John Muir founded The Sierra Club and helped establish a few of our national parks in California (Yosemite & Sequoia are the two most famous ones, iirc).

The thing is that denial of access to land is what forces people to participate in the economy. Cheezy's guy picking berries could conceivably pick those berries, tend a small patch of garden, shoot an occasional rabbit or other unprotected protein, and just not have a job.

But the law in America is that you can only take food from land you own. So in the land of the free, go get a job and be miserable like everyone else.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Never heard of right to roam.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The thing is that denial of access to land is what forces people to participate in the economy. Cheezy's guy picking berries could conceivably pick those berries, tend a small patch of garden, shoot an occasional rabbit or other unprotected protein, and just not have a job.

But the law in America is that you can only take food from land you own. So in the land of the free, go get a job and be miserable like everyone else.

Right. It was this precise thinking which drove the Enclosure Acts, for example. People had to be forced to participate in the capitalist economy, both as producers and consumers, and they weren't going to do that tending a farm or homestead.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, ain't that grand. I also love how you're responsible if someone drowns in your pool after trespassing to swim there.

It is also, under US civil law(in places), your answer to Cheezy on how it's hurting you.

 

[Borachio]

Thomas Paine agreed with you.

Thomas Paine is fast turning into my hero. Politically speaking, that is. I do have other interests.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The idea that you should be responsible for someone else's idiocy on your own property is itself idiocy, if you were wholly uninvolved in the event.

Again, I'm not looking for a legal argument, I'm looking for a philosophical one. Why, outside of the brunt force of the law, is this thing right or wrong?

 

[bhsup]

Ha, so it is Though i maintain "because it's mine" is still sufficient

 

[bhsup]

Never heard of right to roam.

http://youtu.be/1PCYPPKp7ts?t=8m49s

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

That said, the Netherlands apparently does not have right to roam. So kudos Dutch folk everywhere!

 

[warpus]

So with it being popular for you fine folks to tell us in America what we're doing wrong all the time, I thought I'd turn the tables.

Is that popular? I don't think so.

I think it's more of a case of people pointing out things that are not being done right or efficiently, and suggesting better solutions. This site is based in the U.S. and the U.S. also happens to rule the world right now.. So of course a lot of posts are going to end up being about the U.S.

Right to roam. It's dumb. Abolish it wherever it exists. It tears at the very fabric of private ownership. Thankfully it exists -nowhere- in the United States. We're doing it right. The world should emulate us in this regard. Those who don't are just silly.

Right to roam exits in Norway, as far as I know. It makes sense there - most of the country is uninhabited.

Should private persons be able to restrict the movement of others and prevent them from experiencing the beauty of what Norway has to offer? In the eyes of the state, no, as long as we're not talking about an urban setting, such as Oslo or any other city.

Natural resources are very important to Norway and access to the natural beauty of the land to all citizens is a right. Why should someone be able to purchase some of this beauty and keep it for himself? Nope, it's open to all citizens and visitors.

Makes sense to me. So quit your whining, America! You're good at some things (guns, sports, the moon) but bad at others (healthcare, politics, democracy, boobs, the opposite of violence).

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Small country, lots of people makes people rather protective of their little piece of soil.

 

[Farm Boy]

The idea that you should be responsible for someone else's idiocy on your own property is itself idiocy, if you were wholly uninvolved in the event.

Again, I'm not looking for a legal argument, I'm looking for a philosophical one. Why, outside of the brunt force of the law, is this thing right or wrong?

Well, if you change the law then yes, the picture is different. We get to play with hypotheticals instead of what is. Here's my question: Outside of liability do hikers damage B's hypothetical property with their presence? He's paying the taxes on it, if he wants to close it off and not use it, instead allowing it to exist as pristine and undisturbed wild land, is that a legitimate use? Can hypothetical hikers actually leave the land undisturbed? What if it's only 12 of them per year? What if his land being so pristine and great increases the draw so that it's 1200 of them, or 5000? At what point is the very presence of those berry pickers going to cause damage through scaring off bears, or eating the wild foods that nature will use, or leaving trails and debris? Is this different if the ground is tilled farmland or tilled acreage? We run into this all the time actually. Snowmobiles damage ground cover and the lay of the soil even out of growing season. Navigable waterways are public property while they're navigable, and canoe paddlers do come through. Which is fine on it's own. But they need portage sometimes and cattle fences often run along creek lines. A lot of canoe people carry wire clippers for this reason. Then you wind up with loose cattle a little while later. Farmers with livestock wind up hating them. A lot.

I like your sentiment, and I probably agree with it for the most part, but it's got problems. Even national parks have some pretty strict rules. And they have actively paid rangers to enforce those rules. Not everybody sucks. Most people don't. But there are enough that do suck that you wind up with problems no matter how you go about this.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The thing is that denial of access to land is what forces people to participate in the economy. Cheezy's guy picking berries could conceivably pick those berries, tend a small patch of garden, shoot an occasional rabbit or other unprotected protein, and just not have a job.

But the law in America is that you can only take food from land you own. So in the land of the free, go get a job and be miserable like everyone else.

I vaguely recall a recent story of a guy in the wilds of New England who was forced to abandon his wooded encampment. I remember thinking "WTH? let him live there if he wants to." I don't remember the details now, and a 30-second Google search doesn't turn anything up, but maybe he was removed simply for being on private property. iirc, he wasn't cooking meth or breaking into people's houses or anything, he was just a weird old guy who lived in the woods.

 

[Antilogic]

Ha, so it is Though i maintain "because it's mine" is still sufficient

'sez who?

 

[Phrossack]

Right to roam is a nice idea, and I quite like how 40% of Belarus is free-for-all forest. So long as they can prevent the tragedy of the commons, that is.

 

[Zelig]

I also love how you're responsible if someone drowns in your pool after trespassing to swim there.

Are you being sarcastic?

He's paying the taxes on it, if he wants to close it off and not use it, instead allowing it to exist as pristine and undisturbed wild land, is that a legitimate use?

Yeah, but he's opposed to land tax.

I think they actually go very well together - the only way I can see a lack of "right to roam" being reasonable is in the presence of significant land tax.

 

[Farm Boy]

He has to pay the tax if he likes it or not. But he's not being sarcastic about the tort law in wide stretches of the states. Particularly if the trespasser is a minor.