[vidarh]

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.

[arethuza]

"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.

[vidarh]

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.