If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Ramblers
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
For what reason do they believe they can violate the property rights of others?
0
Comments
For the benefit of overseas posters, ramblers are those who enjoy walking on the countryside and campaign to be able to do so through private land. Their website.
Well Monocrat, whereas I understand people being unhappy about opening their back garden to walkers, there are also cases of thousands of acres of countryside being in private hands. This is not part of their properties as such. They simply own parts of the country of outstanding beauty that simply should belong to the Country, not to some Duke who has inherited it in the best feudal fashion.
Surely a compromise can be reached to accommodate all parties concerned in the fairest way?
I understand their frustration at that, in particular as the fascination for that woman never decreases and people might spend all day watching them. But there are also cases, especially in Scotland, where individuals own massive areas of land and want others out.
Strange question for a "libertarian".
Or are you playing devil's advocate?
Do you fully understand the notion of property rights?
But it's still property.
One or two centuries ago people owned slaves in various parts of the world. Do you think there was disgraceful infringement of the ‘masters’ rights when slavery was abolished as well?
Non sequitur. Slavery infringes on a person's right to freedom.
A refusing someone's access to an open area doesn't?
Why am I not "free" to walk across open land?
If so, why should you violate others property? Could you go into sensitive areas (such as military bases)?
As I said earlier, do you understand the notion of property rights? You can walk across land, but it depends on who owns it. Walking across land without permission infringes on property rights.
Look at the examples of Scotland. Vast open spaces of land which belongs to an individual, thanks to his ancestory screwing over a nation.
What shouldn't I be allowed to walk across this land?
When you talk about Military Bases, people's gardens etc, you are on a different subject. We're talking about open land...
Ever seen a farm? :rolleyes:
Not in America:D
Seriously, restricted access should be allowed- the easiest way to do this is to open up any land that was common land before enclosure, unless the plot is under a certain acreage to protect gardens, and leave the rest as it is.
Why should some toff have been allowed to violate the property rights by enclosure, monocrat? Because he could? As people have said, that justification was used for slavery.
Not all land should be opened mind, and I think ramblers dont make it easy for themselves with how they behave on public footpaths now...my gf lives in Cumbria, and part of her familys land is on a footpath- strangely enough, the land surrounding that footpath gets covered in litter and dog shit every summer. When people behave like that I agree with monocrat, but the land is for the nation traditionally and should be opened.
Yes, it belongs to the nation.
Yes, it belongs to the nation. It was stolen during enclosure. That's what common land is, and most open fells were common land until some rich toff or other decided to enclose it for himself.
Consider it returning to us what is rightfully ours. You wouldn't say a person was stealing property if they took back what was stolen from them.
This statement has no foundation. Who are you to say what people can and cannot own?
I don't see how the original method taking the land is relevant.
Why is there a need for common land?
Why is there a need for private property?
Marxist, huh?
:rolleyes:
Sorry, but wasn't you the one who raised the issue of property rights?
Wasn't this the property of the nation which was then "stolen"?
Who said there was? No-one suggested that there was a need for common land, just that it was common land, but now it isn't...
Part of the notion of property rights is 'doing as one pleases' with their property.
Besides, how is common land being defined in this instance? Is it land which is collectively owned by a community?
Yes but there will always be need for common land, landmarks, parks and historical lands. Things that need to be peserved and that means somthings for the people.
Is the state, or local government, unable to own property in the UK?
If not, what is to prevent the state from purchasing the land that landmarks sit on, that are public parks, or historical lands?
Also, how is it that this land was "stolen" if the title was held by the state?