51–60 of 71 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You just grant right of abode to a number of young men that know how to handle weapons. They'll be very motivated to defend it - and you! - from the hordes, especially given their families are residing there too. There, you just reinstated feudalism, with barely any extra steps.
Why would the people you hire care what you think once society has collapsed to the point where money and contracts are worthless?
I'm from Texas originally and in Texas, well, you just don't go on other peoples land. But I grew up sharing a fence line with national grasslands and I naturally developed an affinity for public land. A few years ago I learned about Hawaiis public ownership of the beaches when a friend took me to a locals secret spot in Kauai that we had to trespass to get to. The trail to get there represented a battle between land…
Unfortunately I can't say the same for other people. I just keep seeing more and more trash around pretty lakes because people got there and have a party and just leave all the trash. I found piles of junk in the forest just to learn that people just dump it there because it's easy and free. The problem is that it's basically impossible to enforce the Freedom to roam rules about not leaving trash or cutting down trees and so on. Basically it is just free for all to dump trash and behave like people want because of the lack of enforcement.
At this point I really wish to own a forest but not in Sweden, I want to own it in a country where I have real property right were I can people away from it because I don't want them to ruin it. Sure I don't need 100,000 of acres but I still want to own forest and be able to keep people from using it without permission.
I see this is as a problem with wealth inequality and not land per say. A wealth gap leads to exaggerated levels of... you get the idea.
At least we should have a law that people can pass through that land like they have in Scotland.
If anyone can just go through the land anyway, all of a sudden there is no need for any projects. At least no big one.
But maybe I'm just being cynical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a point of comparison in the other direction, the federal government owns 34.5 million acres in Idaho alone.
Isn’t the federal government at the very least supposed to embody the will of it’s people? I’ve no problem with my nation owning a lot of the land within its borders. You certainly didn’t make any particular point on the subject but I’d rather we own than one person owns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least we should have a law that people can pass through that land like they have in Scotland.
I'm thinking the politicians from anyplace that would be a problem are strongly disincentivized from making any such law. If a guy owns a big enough tract, then that's potential for a huge roads project to go around that tract. Roads projects mean money and jobs, lots of the former and lots, and lots of the latter. Jobs tends to mean votes. Especially in rural areas. If anyone can just go through the land anyway, all…
Land taxes will curb the billionaires, make the land have a carrying cost
Additionally everyone should have the right to roam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Biltmore seems enormous, and far more than any family needed for a living space. But now we're starting to hear about things the government has done there over the years, and you get the sense that we've likely not heard about it all. And that's just stuff from the Gilded Age. Technology has advanced considerably.
If we are dead set on having a right to roam, then at the very least, you can't be able to sue the government or any landowner for any negative impact that you may incur by roaming. Like coming home and infecting your family or your school or whatever. A landowner should be able to post a sign that says, "danger: stay out" or something, and then you choose whether to stay out. But the consequences of the choice have to be on you. (But only for government type stuff. I don't believe a landowner should be able to lay booby traps for instance. But if the government has something going there, like at Biltmore? Well, they said "stay out", and you didn't. So that should be on you.)
I'm from Texas originally and in Texas, well, you just don't go on other peoples land. But I grew up sharing a fence line with national grasslands and I naturally developed an affinity for public land. A few years ago I learned about Hawaiis public ownership of the beaches when a friend took me to a locals secret spot in Kauai that we had to trespass to get to. The trail to get there represented a battle between land…
I grew up in Sweden with extensive Freedom to roam rights where you can visit all the forest and lakes. But my view has gone in the opposite direction, as someone who loves being in nature I thought the idea was wonderful and I have spent so much time in nature picking mushrooms and nuts. It has been great for me and I respect nature and try to leave it as I found it. Unfortunately I can't say the same for other peop…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm thinking the politicians from anyplace that would be a problem are strongly disincentivized from making any such law. If a guy owns a big enough tract, then that's potential for a huge roads project to go around that tract. Roads projects mean money and jobs, lots of the former and lots, and lots of the latter. Jobs tends to mean votes. Especially in rural areas. If anyone can just go through the land anyway, all…
Well, in Scotland you only have the right to walk or cycle across other people's property - and with a number of restrictions (no damaging crops, no access to immediate vicinity or houses etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm thinking the politicians from anyplace that would be a problem are strongly disincentivized from making any such law. If a guy owns a big enough tract, then that's potential for a huge roads project to go around that tract. Roads projects mean money and jobs, lots of the former and lots, and lots of the latter. Jobs tends to mean votes. Especially in rural areas. If anyone can just go through the land anyway, all…
Well, in Scotland you only have the right to walk or cycle across other people's property - and with a number of restrictions (no damaging crops, no access to immediate vicinity or houses etc.).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t the federal government at the very least supposed to embody the will of it’s people? I’ve no problem with my nation owning a lot of the land within its borders. You certainly didn’t make any particular point on the subject but I’d rather we own than one person owns.
My point wasn’t so much about whether it’s right or wrong for private landowners to own that much land. It’s that the western continental US is really big (and empty) as compared to Cyprus or Israel.