7 ms·

Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones for the right to roam on access lands? Because it seems like something that's pretty indefensible as is, e

Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones for the right to roam on access lands? Because it seems like something that's pretty indefensible as is, either the public should be allowed to responsibly trespass on private land or they shouldn't.

yummypaint 3y ago
Some of the right of ways in England have existed and been in continuous use since long before recorded history. A better question is what authority does anyone have to close them?
- some_random 3y ago
  The government definitely, maybe land owners, I don't know a lot about English law. The rights of way that are in continuous use aren't really the subject of this conversation, it's the ones described here that are currently inaccessible.
fsckboy 3y ago
>Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones you can't throw reasons away by labelling them historic, the same historic reasons still apply today, call them Chesterton's reasons. They need to be balanced against other reasons, and your reasons and my reasons might be different, but that's what our govts do for us, and when enough people are unhappy we change govts.
- some_random 3y ago
  That's why I'm asking, what are these reasons that need to be balanced against?
  - dogman144 3y ago
    Qualifying the reasons as "purely historic" as if that's a different type of reason is a bit of a dog whistle out around shenanigans with public land access and water rights in the western US, for what it's worth. Edit - what I mean to be clearer is that when it comes to land access, "historical" (i.e. what's on paper) is the only reason that counts - as in, property rights which span both private property, and the one that many love to forget - public land. Courts consistently hold this up. Those seeking to limit public land access for more or less greed often attempt to wave away those historical records via "well it's historical, what else is there to consider today," as if their private property rights are not also protected for the same reason.
mjh2539 3y ago
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3
- some_random 3y ago
  I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?
  - opheliate 3y ago
    Dismissing the Summa Theologica as “borderline schizophrenic nonsense” makes me believe you’re just trolling here.
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
    It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language. I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights. This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
    - seabass-labrax 3y ago
      Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin. To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?
hgomersall 3y ago
The right to roam movement is explicitly about responsible access rights to most of the countryside. As a whole hearted supporter, I agree that the situation is indefensible and needs fixing. We are essentially excluded from land through centuries old stitch ups intended to exclude the common man. It's stuff that goes back to the Norman conquest when the elite essentially carved up hunting lands for their own benefit, with subsequent enclosure after enclosure that destroyed commons rights. The intent of the Right to Roam movement is to reclaim some of what was taken from us as a whole.
- sevenf0ur 3y ago
  Ignorant question, but why is it still relevant today? Are there not public lands you can utilize and roads and transportation to get there?
  - WD-42 3y ago
    Americans are used to everything being compartmentalized “if you want to go for a walk drive to the park” but there are people out there that still want to exist and have a sense of real place - the ability to physically move through it is important.
  - sp332 3y ago
    2/3 of England is owned by 0.36% of the population. Half by 0.1% https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-engla...
OJFord 3y ago
I don't know if this counts as 'purely historic' or not, but I think the pragmatic answer is simply that it's the law. The land was bought by its present owner knowing that the public had a right of way across it. The law could change, but there's no particular reason for it to any more than there is to argue for it to exist from first principles.
jltsiren 3y ago
Land ownership is an arbitrary right created by the government. It's not a natural right, because natural property rights start from the idea that the fruits of your labor are yours. But because the land was already there before humans, it's not a fruit of anyone's labor. You can have natural rights over the land you are actively using, but you will eventually lose those rights if you stop using the land. And because land ownership is a right created by the government, the government can define the terms and change them.
- crtified 3y ago
  The concept of dominance over territory is one of the foundations of social structure in most natural species. The fact humanity has formalised that dominance into our own bureaucratic forms is merely stylistic.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    And the dominant entity in human societies is the state with military and police forces. If we continue with this line of thought, the state has the natural right to decide who is allowed to use which piece of land, under which terms. And it has also the natural right to change its mind.
    - crtified 3y ago
      That has indeed been the outcome in many countries, e.g. authoritarian regimes and such. But I suppose there is some philosophical difference, as to whether or not human actions are part of the natural world.

yummypaint 3y ago

Some of the right of ways in England have existed and been in continuous use since long before recorded history. A better question is what authority does anyone have to close them?

some_random 3y ago
The government definitely, maybe land owners, I don't know a lot about English law. The rights of way that are in continuous use aren't really the subject of this conversation, it's the ones described here that are currently inaccessible.

fsckboy 3y ago

>Are there any reasons other than purely historic ones you can't throw reasons away by labelling them historic, the same historic reasons still apply today, call them Chesterton's reasons. They need to be balanced against other reasons, and your reasons and my reasons might be different, but that's what our govts do for us, and when enough people are unhappy we change govts.

some_random 3y ago
That's why I'm asking, what are these reasons that need to be balanced against?
- dogman144 3y ago
  Qualifying the reasons as "purely historic" as if that's a different type of reason is a bit of a dog whistle out around shenanigans with public land access and water rights in the western US, for what it's worth. Edit - what I mean to be clearer is that when it comes to land access, "historical" (i.e. what's on paper) is the only reason that counts - as in, property rights which span both private property, and the one that many love to forget - public land. Courts consistently hold this up. Those seeking to limit public land access for more or less greed often attempt to wave away those historical records via "well it's historical, what else is there to consider today," as if their private property rights are not also protected for the same reason.

mjh2539 3y ago

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3 https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2097.htm#article3

some_random 3y ago
I don't have the time to decode this borderline schizophrenic nonsense, what's the point and how does it relate to the right to access currently inaccessible land?
- opheliate 3y ago
  Dismissing the Summa Theologica as “borderline schizophrenic nonsense” makes me believe you’re just trolling here.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  It's saying that custom can obtain the force of law. This is relevant to the Right to Roam, because some areas are open to public use by custom, and this can challenge strict interpretations of property rights. I think mjh2539 is trying to gain a rhetorical toehold for traditional Commons rights. Since those rights are traditional and very old, it somehow seems fitting that the argument should be expressed in old-fashioned Catholic theological language. I appreciate that an intensely "conservative" cultural form is used here to make a pro-populist argument for "liberal" rights. This lines up well with the kind of stances that the Anglican Church ended up taking in theology. That Church follows both Scripture and Tradition. (By contrast, and generalizing a bit, I think an extreme Protestant stance would tend to value only Scripture.) This feels like a more secular version of same.
  - seabass-labrax 3y ago
    Over time I've come to appreciate more the way in which the Anglican Church, as you put it, "follows both Scripture and Tradition". A single clever person can manipulate with relative ease the interpretation of a written document (for instance, scripture), but to manipulate an entire custom is much more challenging, although arguably not impossible. Thus, although evil customs can certainly emerge gradually over time, a given custom is, in my opinion, more often than not founded on an older course of reasoning that was righteous in origin. To put it more concretely: a written document from a thousand years ago is almost unintelligible to all but specialist linguists, and its accurate interpretation difficult for all but specialist social historians. Yet the customs displayed by a people that long ago would still seem very familiar today. Which would you trust to form the basis of your community's sense of justice - the faded old document in a strange language, or the equally ancient tradition passed down habitually across generations?

hgomersall 3y ago

The right to roam movement is explicitly about responsible access rights to most of the countryside. As a whole hearted supporter, I agree that the situation is indefensible and needs fixing. We are essentially excluded from land through centuries old stitch ups intended to exclude the common man. It's stuff that goes back to the Norman conquest when the elite essentially carved up hunting lands for their own benefit, with subsequent enclosure after enclosure that destroyed commons rights. The intent of the Right to Roam movement is to reclaim some of what was taken from us as a whole.

sevenf0ur 3y ago
Ignorant question, but why is it still relevant today? Are there not public lands you can utilize and roads and transportation to get there?
- WD-42 3y ago
  Americans are used to everything being compartmentalized “if you want to go for a walk drive to the park” but there are people out there that still want to exist and have a sense of real place - the ability to physically move through it is important.
- sp332 3y ago
  2/3 of England is owned by 0.36% of the population. Half by 0.1% https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-engla...

OJFord 3y ago

I don't know if this counts as 'purely historic' or not, but I think the pragmatic answer is simply that it's the law. The land was bought by its present owner knowing that the public had a right of way across it. The law could change, but there's no particular reason for it to any more than there is to argue for it to exist from first principles.

jltsiren 3y ago

Land ownership is an arbitrary right created by the government. It's not a natural right, because natural property rights start from the idea that the fruits of your labor are yours. But because the land was already there before humans, it's not a fruit of anyone's labor. You can have natural rights over the land you are actively using, but you will eventually lose those rights if you stop using the land. And because land ownership is a right created by the government, the government can define the terms and change them.

crtified 3y ago
The concept of dominance over territory is one of the foundations of social structure in most natural species. The fact humanity has formalised that dominance into our own bureaucratic forms is merely stylistic.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  And the dominant entity in human societies is the state with military and police forces. If we continue with this line of thought, the state has the natural right to decide who is allowed to use which piece of land, under which terms. And it has also the natural right to change its mind.
  - crtified 3y ago
    That has indeed been the outcome in many countries, e.g. authoritarian regimes and such. But I suppose there is some philosophical difference, as to whether or not human actions are part of the natural world.