Where I live we have a "right to roam" over other peoples land as long as we behave sensibly and follow some simple restrictions - seems to work perfectly well.
If I'm understanding correctly you're implying that we can have the concept of individual land ownership, whilst not restricting general access of said land, yes?
This is all fine and very nice when it comes to your ability to take a leisurely stroll in the countryside, but it is only such a small facet of the actual issue at hand: Land being hoarded and/or not being developed to the most of it's potential utility. This is one of the reasons why a city like San Francisco has thousands of homeless people and almost no high density housing.
You need both. Freedom to roam in Scandinavia goes much further than the right to a stroll, and includes e.g. foraging and camping, but you're right it doesn't solve the issue of ownership.
To me the freedom to roam is more valuable as an example of how property rights the way they are elsewhere is a huge infringement on liberty in that it massively restricts the general public to the benefit of individual owners.
Once you've experienced it, it is hard not to feel walled in and unfree when you move somewhere without that right.
As such, it is reasonable to discuss which other aspects of property rights ought to be curtailed if one wants to maximise liberty for all.
"Once you've experienced it, it is hard not to feel walled in and unfree when you move somewhere without that right."
I completely agree, I was referring to Scotland where the Right to Roam was introduced relatively recently - I suspect to counterbalance the existing historical land ownership position which is very complex and opaque.
I think you're right that codifying what had previously existed as a de facto but no de jure right certainly was a direct response to increasing pressure from landowners to limit access.
Norway was in a similar situation in that until the 1950's the right was implicit - the one major area of law which was not codified because it was seen as so self-evident that it wasn't considered necessary (Sweden, in contrast, has it embedded in its constitution) - until pressure from land owners who increasingly started blocking off land in ways which violated of centuries of tradition made it clear it needed to be codified so it could be defended in court.
It's seen as integral enough to Norwegian culture that it's taught in primary school.
> Land being hoarded and/or not being developed to the most of it's potential utility. This is why a city like San Francisco has thousands of homeless people and almost no high density housing.
I think you'd need to cite why this is the sole explanation for the scale of SF's homeless population.
> Land being hoarded and/or not being developed to the most of it's potential utility
Land value taxes (in the Georgist/Geoist manner) will ensure that a very valuable parcel of land, such as the one in the middle of San Francisco, will not have a low-value improvement such as a parking lot or a single-story dwelling on top of it.
Too bad that the actual policy we have instead is stuff like Prop 13 and rent control, which all but assures that such higher-value development will not happen.
This is all fine and very nice when it comes to your ability to take a leisurely stroll in the countryside, but it is only such a small facet of the actual issue at hand: Land being hoarded and/or not being developed to the most of it's potential utility. This is one of the reasons why a city like San Francisco has thousands of homeless people and almost no high density housing.