Get off my lawn

[warpus]

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

You could use this argument for both sides, actually.

The beauty of the land belongs to the people. It is there for all to enjoy, because it belongs to them.

You can buy the dirt that the beauty sits on, but you could never buy the beauty.. it belongs to all.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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.

Here's the thing...there is 'privately owned' land, which he would be kicked off of...and there is 'publicly owned' (ie government) land, which he would be kicked off of even more efficiently. The only way in America to 'live in the woods' is if you own the woods.

 

[Borachio]

Just live off the land. And keep a very low profile.

Or you could just ask permission of the landowner.

Or you could keep moving.

Or you could keep to the highways.

Ah, for the vagrant life! What joy!

Who owns the shoreline in the US, btw?

 

[Windsor]

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.

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.

Private property is a concept most Americans value too highly. But even if you might not realize it, everyone limits private property.

The extreme version of private property is full sovereignty. My land, my laws. Thankfully no one goes that far, so even Americans seem to realize some restrictions is needed.

Right to roam is great. Well implemented it greatly increases people freedoms while only giving the landowner negligible drawbacks.

And remember, in countries where the right to roam has a long tradition people knew about this when they bought the land.

 

[warpus]

America actually has some of the more flexible eminent domain laws in the western world, as far as I know. The feds can come in and take your private property as they see fit, even if the thing that's being built in place of your house (or your cottage, or whatever) is not really being built for the good of the community.

That's 20,000 times worse than allowing hikers to hike through your heavily wooded property, that's sitting close to the arctic circle. So as long as we're comparing America to other countries, we might as well admit that it's not really as "free" as people claim it is.. at least if you compare specific laws to their counterparts elsewhere.

 

[AdamCrock]

Just live off the land. And keep a very low profile.

Or you could just ask permission of the landowner.

Or you could keep moving.

Or you could keep to the highways.

Ah, for the vagrant life! What joy!

Who owns the shoreline in the US, btw?

Say Borachio , let's band together and form our own Nomadic Civ !!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Say Borachio , let's band together and form our own Nomadic Civ !!

Aren't those the rather inconvenient units known as "Barbarians"?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Aren't those the rather inconvenient units known as "Barbarians"?

Well, yes.

So my complaint is that the US has outlawed barbarians, and Bhsup thinks that is a good thing.

 

[Cutlass]

I used to have to tell the Canada Post carrier to get off my lawn. Literally. Instead of using the sidewalk, he'd stroll from porch to porch across peoples' lawns, and only used the sidewalk if there was a fence or hedge in his way. He seemed to think he was entitled to do this, but I told him that if the paper boy could use the sidewalk, so could he.

The post office bosses instruct the carriers to cross the lawns. It saves them time.

 

[Kennigit]

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?

It may be easier to somewhat certify "roaming" areas as safer to roamers than having default roaming status on all forestry/farmland

Forestry should be easier to designate as public property/roamable, i.e. limit anyone from just owning swaths of wildlife

Farmland may, for instance, be downwind of pesticides or whatnot that the berry picker may not be fully aware of and unintentionally consume, whereas the used portions of said farmland would be more heavily monitored for carcinogenic or whatever material present

Now for simple parkland that is hard to imagine, "how would that be unsafe? Nothing is there" but at some border somewhere it may not be so easy to imagine

 

[Kennigit]

Same concept with hunting/fishing grounds, to prevent overfishing. Many would want open fishing everywhere, a "free to fish" roaming that may be very harmful in a utilitarian or practical sense

 

[AdamCrock]

Aren't those the rather inconvenient units known as "Barbarians"?

Basically ... yes ... but we're gonna be civilized barbarians !! We gonna send a diplomatic mission into Mr. Bshup's lawn territory. I just hope He's not from Texas cos he could shoot us :O

Well, yes.

So my complaint is that the US has outlawed barbarians, and Bhsup thinks that is a good thing.

It's not a good thing because we need experience from them xD

Anyway I was just wondering if there's no signs that a certain area is a property can You still soot a guy that trespasses ? (Texas) ?

 

[jackelgull]

Basically ... yes ... but we're gonna be civilized barbarians !! We gonna send a diplomatic mission into Mr. Bshup's lawn territory. I just hope He's not from Texas cos he could shoot us :O



It's not a good thing because we need experience from them xD

Anyway I was just wondering if there's no signs that a certain area is a property can You still soot a guy that trespasses ? (Texas) ?

Actually barbarians wouldn't really be appropriate as they can plop down and form cities. They're more like the early American squatters searching for prime pieces of real estate not really caring too much whether they appropriate it from the natives or not. In Warlords, there is a scenario in which you can play as the Mongols that add this cool camp mechanic in which instead of cities you get camps that randomly pop out.

Sorry, just me being pedantic.

 

[AdamCrock]

Actually barbarians wouldn't really be appropriate as they can plop down and form cities. They're more like the early American squatters searching for prime pieces of real estate not really caring too much whether they appropriate it from the natives or not. In Warlords, there is a scenario in which you can play as the Mongols that add this cool camp mechanic in which instead of cities you get camps that randomly pop out.

Sorry, just me being pedantic.

Yeah I remember this scenario from warlords ^^ Very good concept and mechanics. About that American remark on Indians I suspect that it's the main reason why there's so many haunted hauses and natural disasters there - Old Indian ghosts want to..... get them of their lawn

 

[Arwon]

I have never heard of this concept.

 

[Camikaze]

Right to roam. It's dumb. Abolish it wherever it exists. It tears at the very fabric of private ownership.

I think this statement indicates a bit of a misunderstanding of how property works. Why do you hate property rights?

 

[brennan]

If I won the lottery tomorrow and bought 1,500 acres of Colorado Wilderness, you can bet your backside I'd not be letting random strangers walk across it...

Property is theft

 

[El_Machinae]

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

How can it possibly be yours? Did the group that gave it to you own it legitimately?

It's tough in the real world, because nearly all owned land property in the planet was originally taken violently by someone else. You cannot easily claim land property from a principled argument.

 

[bhsup]

I honestly don't care about the land being taken 200 years ago or whatever. If I bought it, have the title fit it, and hey because it is smart got title insurance, that is quite sufficient for me.

@Brennan: Not according to our Constitution.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, if you don't care, then why should I care when someone tries to take it violently from you?