[phpisthebest]

As a general rule I dislike the form of government that is European, and prefer the American Individualist system, so I dont think it would be nice if America adopts more European laws, we have adopted too many of them already IMO.

We revolted for a reason, many Americans seem to have forgotten those reasons in the centuries since, Europe has always been more authoritarian than the US, and they largely replaced monarch systems with more collectivist systems instead of adoption of more Individualist systems like the US did.

I prefer the Individualist system, the smallest minority is the individual, and individual rights are supreme over collective or group rights.

[7952]

In somewhere like the UK the "authority" can be the large land owner/aristocrat. And individuals own relatively little land. It is the kind of thing that Americans escaped from! In that context public access is a defence of individual rights. And often rights will have existed for hundreds or even thousands of years. Public access is a defence of that.

But I think the different culture of America is a really good practical reason against improving access for the public. Guns alone would make it risky.

[HarryHirsch]

Kinder Scout deserves honourable mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

[teraflop]

It seems really odd to view a law granting individuals the right to use land for personal recreation as "authoritarian" and not "individualist".

[phpisthebest]

Why? The "right to roam" is a collective right granting the public a "right" over that of the individual property owners right to control access and use to their property.

To conflate the "right to roam" as a "individual right" completely miss understands what an individual right is

[9dev]

This is possibly the core difference between the US and Europe for me; American individualism isn’t about individuals, but property, and it always has been. By granting someone a degree of land ownership so extreme they can inhibit other people from experiencing nature across it, you’re merely fetishising property, and doing every single individual a net disservice in the process.

[phpisthebest]

>you’re merely fetishising property

I am not "fetishising property", I am merely including property in with human rights. The Self-dermination or Self-ownership principle naturally requires some system of property ownership. One such system is Homesteading, while I do not fully support homesteading as a concept, I do believe in some kind of private property ownership is required for a functional society based on individual Self-dermination, absent that individuals would not have ownership of their labor or work product, and other functions of their lives.

Personally I lean more towards a Geoism model that combines exclusive possession of real property but is not "full ownership" but even under a Geoism model is critical that the "owner" or possessor of the land is given right of exclusion

[Kamq]

> This is possibly the core difference between the US and Europe for me; American individualism isn’t about individuals, but property, and it always has been.

That doesn't jive with my experience on the subject. The core of American individualism has always been the traditional first amendment rights. The idea that you can live your life your way requires property rights, sure, but they're ancillary to the ultimate goal of freedom.

Now, if you don't agree with the first amendment, it may look very different. And I could understand why someone would disagree with it. Not everyone wants to have to tolerate, say, nazi rallies being held out in the open. But to reduce it all to property is missing the forest for the trees.

[jltsiren]

Land ownership, as we understand it today, is a government-granted right, not a natural right.

Ownership as a natural right is based on the idea that the fruit of your labor belong to you, and on voluntary trade. The land already existed before humans, so it can't be fruit of anyone's labor. It can't be owned in this sense. Traditional ideas of land control were based on usage, not ownership. If you used the land for something – built a house on it, farmed it etc. – that was the fruit of your labor and the land belonged to you. But if you abandoned the land and it started reverting to natural state, others could eventually claim it.

Freedom to roam laws retain some of these traditional ideas. The owner can only control access to protect their use of the land. If the land is unused, others can roam the land, as long as that does not hinder the owner's ability to use the land in the future.

[phpisthebest]

>If you used the land for something

So preservation of natural state is not a "use" ? Hunting is not a "use"?

I think they are...

>Land ownership, as we understand it today, is a government-granted right, not a natural right.

I think it is largely both, and I recognize that we can and should reform some of the government granted rights I just dont think the Right of Exclusion should be one of those reforms.

[jltsiren]

The lack of usage is not a use. Preservation means changing the legal status of the land permanently, and it also prevents the land owner from using the land for other purposes in the future.

Hunting is a use, but only when it's actually occurring.

[burgerzzz]

It favors the collective rather than the individuals right to personal property, it’s not an odd view.

[yamtaddle]

> We revolted for a reason, many Americans seem to have forgotten those reasons in the centuries since

Aristocrats couldn't accept admitting representatives elected by the merely rich, rather than only aristocrats, since that would obviously be a large step toward the end of aristocratic political privilege, while most British citizens in positions of political power in the colonies were rich but were not aristocrats, so wouldn't accept representation that curtailed the franchise and/or restricted office to aristocrats, as it was in Britain (American revolutionary leaders wanted a slightly larger franchise, as was the custom in the colonies, and without which they would suffer a great loss of power and probably wealth, since office is a great way to get richer, maybe even more-so then than now) and these positions were irreconcilable for reasons of individual interest on both sides?

[EDIT] I mean there were also propaganda reasons but if that hadn't been a factor the war very likely wouldn't have happened until/unless Britain tried to end slavery.