4 ms·

Why?

by CogitoCogito 2y ago

Why?

surfingdino 2y ago
Poop cairns.
em500 2y ago
Because in practice people don't clean up after themselves, especially in public places.
- vidarh 2y ago
  In 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 ago
  The majority do clean up, but of course this goes unnoticed.
0xEF 2y ago
My 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 ago
  Freedom collides with a lot of other rights. For example you are not free to murder people.
beaeglebeachh 2y ago
In 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 ago
  So if the law were changed to remove said liability, you would support a freedom to roam in the US?
  - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
    I would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.
    - vidarh 2y ago
      So 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 ago
        Your 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.
        CogitoCogito 2y ago
        I’m confused why you think this would put you at increased risk. You are allowed to defend yourself against threats today. Why do you think that would change? Though you are also speaking as if people camping on your land away from your dwelling are necessarily threatening. If that is something you believe, you might want to reflect and ask yourself why.
victorbjorklund 2y ago
An 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 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. 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 ago
    Yea. That is my point. It is a great freedom but there needs to be a balance.
- CogitoCogito 2y ago
  Do 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 ago
    My point is more that it has to be a freedom that is limited and not absolute.
dyauspitr 2y ago
I 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.

Why?

surfingdino 2y ago

Poop cairns.

em500 2y ago

Because in practice people don't clean up after themselves, especially in public places.

vidarh 2y ago
In 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 ago
The majority do clean up, but of course this goes unnoticed.

0xEF 2y ago

My 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 ago
Freedom collides with a lot of other rights. For example you are not free to murder people.

beaeglebeachh 2y ago

In 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 ago
So if the law were changed to remove said liability, you would support a freedom to roam in the US?
- beaeglebeachh 2y ago
  I would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    So 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 ago
      Your 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.
      - CogitoCogito 2y ago
        I’m confused why you think this would put you at increased risk. You are allowed to defend yourself against threats today. Why do you think that would change? Though you are also speaking as if people camping on your land away from your dwelling are necessarily threatening. If that is something you believe, you might want to reflect and ask yourself why.

victorbjorklund 2y ago

An 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 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. 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 ago
  Yea. That is my point. It is a great freedom but there needs to be a balance.
CogitoCogito 2y ago
Do 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 ago
  My point is more that it has to be a freedom that is limited and not absolute.

dyauspitr 2y ago

I 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.