[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.