21–30 of 44 posts
I like this idea theoretically but I wouldn’t want a random person camping on my 20 acres.
Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would compromise if they offer me in trade ability to shoot trespassers/"roamers" who are criminal traffickers.
We’re talking people walking across or camping on your land and in both cases staying away from any residences where people actually live. How would you even know someone is trafficking?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Nobody is asking you to allow others to do violence against you. But that you want to be free to deprive others of life and liberty on the basis of guesses strikes as a brutally authoritarian attitude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you don't understand why, I'm going to guess you haven't spent much time in remote US/Mexico border regions far from ports of entry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
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?
There are many possible tradeoffs there other than specifically the Norwegian or Swedish variants to allow most activities unhindered without affecting landowners much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why?
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re talking people walking across or camping on your land and in both cases staying away from any residences where people actually live. How would you even know someone is trafficking?
Hmm might want to reword it as reasonably believe, then let the jury figure it as they did with the rancher with an AK who recently walked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Sweden has similar restrictions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm asking you to stop denying the public freedoms in return for getting the same freedom yourself. Nobody is asking you to allow others to do violence against you. But that you want to be free to deprive others of life and liberty on the basis of guesses strikes as a brutally authoritarian attitude.