3 ms·

Your alternative then, is what? Forcibly pull them out? Prevent land sales in further out areas? Prevent building? You have the freedom to choose not to go out

Your alternative then, is what? Forcibly pull them out? Prevent land sales in further out areas? Prevent building? You have the freedom to choose not to go out there. But you wish to restrict the freedom of others to go there.

sandworm101 7y ago
Yup. Zoning areas as non-residential, forbidding construction of residences, is a tool that is regularly used. Another is to saddle zoning permission with infrastructure costs, such as "you cannot further develop this town until a road is run to it". Health codes also work (must have proper water/sewage disposal etc). The government cannot stop people from walking on their own land, but it can certainly stop them from building anything on that land. Much of the live-off-the-land lifestyle is already illegal. Contrary to the TV shows, one cannot just hunt anything they want when they get hungry. They need tags. Animals can only be hunted during specific seasons. And there are weapons limitations. These are normal regulations that make living a wild lifestyle, a legal one, very very difficult.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Proper water and sewage disposal I can get behind; the environment is a shared resource. Just saying that people can't live there because you might feel the need to go out there and save them from themselves is deeply problematic in my view.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    But we do that all the time. Parks close due to avalanche risk. We close roads if we think heavy rain will wash them out. Airspace around active volcanoes is closed. We don't let people build certain buildings in earthquake zones. Entire towns have even been closed due to pollution risks. Governments do these things both to protect people from becoming victims, and to protect rescuers from having to risk their own lives pulling people out.

3 ms·

Your alternative then, is what? Forcibly pull them out? Prevent land sales in further out areas? Prevent building? You have the freedom to choose not to go out

by esotericn 7y ago

sandworm101 7y ago
Yup. Zoning areas as non-residential, forbidding construction of residences, is a tool that is regularly used. Another is to saddle zoning permission with infrastructure costs, such as "you cannot further develop this town until a road is run to it". Health codes also work (must have proper water/sewage disposal etc). The government cannot stop people from walking on their own land, but it can certainly stop them from building anything on that land. Much of the live-off-the-land lifestyle is already illegal. Contrary to the TV shows, one cannot just hunt anything they want when they get hungry. They need tags. Animals can only be hunted during specific seasons. And there are weapons limitations. These are normal regulations that make living a wild lifestyle, a legal one, very very difficult.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Proper water and sewage disposal I can get behind; the environment is a shared resource. Just saying that people can't live there because you might feel the need to go out there and save them from themselves is deeply problematic in my view.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    But we do that all the time. Parks close due to avalanche risk. We close roads if we think heavy rain will wash them out. Airspace around active volcanoes is closed. We don't let people build certain buildings in earthquake zones. Entire towns have even been closed due to pollution risks. Governments do these things both to protect people from becoming victims, and to protect rescuers from having to risk their own lives pulling people out.