4 ms·
There are actually a number of national legal frameworks that would disagree with you. See "everyman's right" in Finland, Iceland, Scotland, Norway, which has l
by kaitai 10y ago
There are actually a number of national legal frameworks that would disagree with you. See "everyman's right" in Finland, Iceland, Scotland, Norway, which has law backing it up. Just because in England such a right wasn't recognized doesn't mean that everyone agrees on this.
(In Finland, by definition of "everyman's right", everyone has a right to hike and to respectfully pick berries and mushrooms on claimed and unclaimed property -- in essence, all of society has limited rights on your land.)
- aminok 10y agoThose are explicit national legal rights, limited to the citizens of a particular nation, granting them rights to land under the legal jurisdiction of the national government. It's not the same as a general implicit right possessed by any given person to forage any given plot of land. In this comment I further explain why I don't believe these national legal rights, and their subsequent abolishment, in any way justify a tax on private income: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797024
- kaitai 10y agoThe rights granted by Nordic countries to forage are not limited to the citizens of a particular nation -- that's why a lot of folks from Thailand fly in each year to pick cloudberries. How is the right to forage a tax on private income? That's a non sequitur.
- aminok 10y agoAs far as I know, Nordic countries don't allow unrestricted entry into their country for foraging of their commons. Correct me if I'm wrong. The OP argues that a tax on private income is justified by us no longer having a right to forage the now privatized land. I thought you were supporting the OP's position, which is why I made that argument.