Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Freedom to Roam

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Freedom to Roam

#31

Post by vidarh »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #30
vidarh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm fine with keeping private property rights so there's no guessing and trespassing is hardline crossing that fence. It was merely an offer as a potential trade since you wanted something for free that involved guessing who is a roamer. Obviously property owners aren't trading away interests unless you're ponying up something sweeten the deal.

I see your attitude as essentially robbing the public of liberty, and I don't get why the US public puts up with being stripped of freedom that way. One of the reasons I am happy I don't live somewhere so oppressive. Though the UK is only marginally better (Scotland much more so than England and Wales) and has been quite the adjustment from Norway compared to the attitude of wanting it to be ok to kill people it's amazing.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#32

Post by beaeglebeachh »

vidarh wrote: post #28
beaeglebeachh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Only if they can shoot at you too if they reasonably believe you're a threat to their safety. Which it sounds like you'd be likely to be.

Deal. Not like they cared about law anyway, so it'll change nothing. They're already looking at life for the kind of armed trafficking they're already doing.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#33

Post by vidarh »

Stevvo wrote: post #13
surfingdino wrote: post #5

We 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.

Many Americans believe they have the freedom to kill trespassers. This seems fundamentally incompatible with that.

It 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.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#34

Post by vidarh »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #32
vidarh wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if they can shoot at you too if they reasonably believe you're a threat to their safety. Which it sounds like you'd be likely to be.

Deal. Not like they cared about law anyway, so it'll change nothing. They're already looking at life for the kind of armed trafficking they're already doing.

Sounds like you live in a third world war zone. Why do you stay if it is that bad?

Re: Freedom to Roam

#35

Post by beaeglebeachh »

vidarh wrote: post #34
beaeglebeachh wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deal. Not like they cared about law anyway, so it'll change nothing. They're already looking at life for the kind of armed trafficking they're already doing.

Sounds like you live in a third world war zone. Why do you stay if it is that bad?

Dumb laws made it prohibitively expensive to build most places, then idiotic monetary policy of the fed caused price explosions particularly during the COVID era. Then all the real estate got locked up in near 0% mortgages people will never give up locking my family out of a home almost anywhere

In short, I got priced out most everywhere and had to go where land is cheap and I was allowed to DIY a shack. Strong property rights and practically unrestricted gun laws here though mean there is at least some protection despite basically no law enforcement.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#36

Post by beaeglebeachh »

vidarh wrote: post #31
beaeglebeachh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with keeping private property rights so there's no guessing and trespassing is hardline crossing that fence. It was merely an offer as a potential trade since you wanted something for free that involved guessing who is a roamer. Obviously property owners aren't trading away interests unless you're ponying up something sweeten the deal.

I see your attitude as essentially robbing the public of liberty, and I don't get why the US public puts up with being stripped of freedom that way. One of the reasons I am happy I don't live somewhere so oppressive. Though the UK is only marginally better (Scotland much more so than England and Wales) and has been quite the adjustment from Norway compared to the attitude of wanting it to be ok to kill people it's am…

I see all liberty as stemming from private property rights. Thus the freedom to roam can only take away your liberty, not add to it.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#37

Post by vidarh »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #35
vidarh wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you live in a third world war zone. Why do you stay if it is that bad?

Dumb laws made it prohibitively expensive to build most places, then idiotic monetary policy of the fed caused price explosions particularly during the COVID era. Then all the real estate got locked up in near 0% mortgages people will never give up locking my family out of a home almost anywhere In short, I got priced out most everywhere and had to go where land is cheap and I was allowed to DIY a shack. Strong prope…

I understand your reaction a bit better in that case. We probably still won't agree, but I get the frustration of being priced out of better places.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#38

Post by throwaway22032 »

The 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.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#39

Post by Stevvo »

vidarh wrote: post #33
Stevvo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Americans believe they have the freedom to kill trespassers. This seems fundamentally incompatible with that.

It 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.

As 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.

Re: Freedom to Roam

#40

Post by dyauspitr »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #3
dyauspitr wrote: post #2

I like this idea theoretically but I wouldn’t want a random person camping on my 20 acres.

Why?

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.

Post reply on HN