33 ms·
Freedom to Roam
- dyauspitr 2y agoI like this idea theoretically but I wouldn’t want a random person camping on my 20 acres.
- CogitoCogito 2y agoWhy?
- surfingdino 2y agoPoop cairns.
- em500 2y agoBecause in practice people don't clean up after themselves, especially in public places.
- vidarh 2y agoIn practice people are pretty good at it when you create a culture where it is ingrained. Not sure about Sweden, but in Norway how to handle the freedom to roam is taught from primary school on, and while the camping is legal, not tidying up isn't.
- JR1427 2y agoThe majority do clean up, but of course this goes unnoticed.
- 0xEF 2y agoMy guess is because OP, like the rest of us Americans, are taught to avoid thinking too deeply about how "freedom" and "property" tend to collide in very uncomfortable ways, but pine for both.
- thecompilr 2y agoFreedom collides with a lot of other rights. For example you are not free to murder people.
- beaeglebeachh 2y agoIn my case, I live near the border and such use 'just roaming lmao' would become perfect cover for drug traffickers, gangs, sex trafficking and all kind of bad stuff I don't want to be liable for when people coming stomping on my property. In US your property can even be seized if such persons are using it. It would also be very expensive for me if someone hurt themselves and then sued me since they are on my property.
- CogitoCogito 2y agoSo if the law were changed to remove said liability, you would support a freedom to roam in the US?
- beaeglebeachh 2y agoI would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.
- vidarh 2y agoSo you want to be judge, jury, and executioner. Doesn't sound like a compromise to me. In Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone taking advantage of the ability to roam would be rightly subject to a massive manhunt.
- beaeglebeachh 2y agoYour asking for me to relinquish some of my private property rights. Obviously I want something in trade, it's not gonna be unilateral charity so traffickers can be judge jury and executioner against my children who roam my property. >Norway, where I grew up anyone shooting at someone In Arizona you can shoot these people with ak47, thankfully and get charges dropped after a deadlocked jury. As recently happened. I'm pretty happy with Norway doing their Norway thing and Arizona doing how we handle it here. Not interested in making the US Norway.
- victorbjorklund 2y agoAn example from Sweden. A commercial company organised a camping trip where one of the stops where on a persons garden. So they pretty much had different campers there everyday. Should a commercial company really be allowed to "rent" out your garden to campers?
- vidarh 2y agoFreedom to roam does not need to be freedom to enter people's garden. At least in Norway, the law requires you to stay a minimum distance from dwellings, and has a variety of requirements to ensure you're not a nuisance. There are many possible tradeoffs there other than specifically the Norwegian or Swedish variants to allow most activities unhindered without affecting landowners much.
- CogitoCogito 2y ago> Freedom to roam does not need to be freedom to enter people's garden. At least in Norway, the law requires you to stay a minimum distance from dwellings, and has a variety of requirements to ensure you're not a nuisance. Sweden has similar restrictions.
- victorbjorklund 2y agoYea. That is my point. It is a great freedom but there needs to be a balance.
- CogitoCogito 2y agoDo you only support laws if there exist no downsides no matter how small? Has there ever been any such law? That said, if we don’t companies engaging in those kinds of practices, it seems more practical to ban those practices than to remove all rights to access entirely.
- victorbjorklund 2y agoMy point is more that it has to be a freedom that is limited and not absolute.
- dyauspitr 2y agoI don’t want unexpected people on my property. I shoot guns sometimes and can now safely assume there is not going to be anyone on my property that can get injured. My kid wanders around the woods we have by herself, I don’t want the possibility of some random person lurking on the property. I don’t want someone coming on to my property and potentially doing illegal drugs that I may or may not liable for. If I had to exaggerate the danger, you could have someone show up for a day, set up a tent, cook meth on your property and then leave knowing full well that if law enforcement shows up they could just run away. I’m going to get downvoted for this but Europe is relatively community minded and frankly a little naive. The US is hardcore when it comes to individualism and will frankly exploit everything up to the very edge of the law. You would have tours of private lands set up within the week especially if you have anything interesting on there. My last point is that Europe is a relatively small place so there isn’t a lot of land to roam but the US isn’t like that. There is plenty of public land to roam so we don’t really need this law.
- eddaross 2y agoI remember when I first learned about it while planning a hiking trip to Sweden. The idea that you can wander through forests, across fields, and along rivers without worrying about trespassing was quite liberating. I ended up exploring some stunning landscapes that I wouldn't have discovered otherwise. I wish more places adopted this approach, it would make outdoor activities more accessible for everyone.
- vidarh 2y agoI'm from Norway. In Sweden it's so important it's part of their constitution. In Norway it's so important it was one of (the?) last parts of Norwegian law to be codified - it was considered so self evident courts took it into account despite Norway not using a common law system. Very different approaches, but both coming from the feeling you quickly get that you can not be truly free if you're surrounded by fenced off land once you're used to it. The other effect is that there is - ironically in a country with extremely high government ownership of other things - less pressure in the government to own land. We don't need national parks (we still have some) to make land accessible to the public, because it all is.
- surfingdino 2y agoWe need that freedom. I would also say that we also need education on how to use that freedom, how to not leave a mess behind, how to preserve those places for others.
- Stevvo 2y agoMany Americans believe they have the freedom to kill trespassers. This seems fundamentally incompatible with that.
- vidarh 2y agoIt is. It requires an attitude that restrictive property rights takes liberty away from the public, and so must be balanced to minimize the restrictions they impose to be legitimate at all.
- Stevvo 2y agoAs a European I prefer the way we do things here, but I do envy the amount of publicly owned land in the US where citizens do have freedom to roam. e.g. National Parks, BLM & Forrest service land. We have less space, most land already owned by a private citizen since Feudal times.
- vidarh 2y agoWell, with freedom to roam it'd largely not matter if it's privately owned. With reasonable sensible rules you get the best of two worlds: You "only" need to take special measures for land that should be left unspoiled. I used to walk through privately owned forests on the way to and from school and sometime go off walkthrough them with friends as a kid without once having to think about who the owner was, because it was irrelevant.
- throwaway22032 2y agoThe population in Norway and Sweden is different from the US and other countries in a way that means it wouldn't work. Put succinctly I would simply say that there are fewer degenerates. One bus or subway journey in NY and one in Stockholm is enough to see that.