| I think you’re missing the point. The right to roam is about the public having access to public land. Public land is paid for and supported by taxpayers, and is therefore theirs to enjoy. Surrounding public land by privately held land, with no rights for the public to freely access it is just not right. It essentially becomes the domain of the land owner that controls access, which then becomes a form of market intervention by the government. This is often a direct subsidisation of a private enterprise and should be opposed by the left because it denies equality and freedom of movement to the people that own the land. It should be opposed by the right as government intervention and interference. It only benefits the individual landowner. Of course, this issue is magnified by the colonial concept of land ownership and ignores any preceding title or use of the land. This also prevents traditional owners from accessing sites of significance. This is not a Nordic idea. Ideas similar the right to roam built many of the economies of new world countries. Cowboys and cattle drives in the US, Drovers in Australia relied on the free movement of men and stock over public and private land. Finally, the land belongs to the people. Laws exist in many jurisdictions for governments to reclaim any land for any reason. Private ownership should be considered long term, but temporary. Denying access to something that the people own is undemocratic, unfair, and unnecessary. Access and maintenance shouldn’t be reduced to the cost of stewardship. |
The issue of land being inaccessible by virtue of being surrounded by private land without roads is solved by the unrelated, separate legal notion of an "easement" to allow access. Easements are used regardless of if the landlocked plot of land is publicly or privately owned.
I agree with you in the general notion of "It's bad that this public land is inaccessible and that should be fixed". But just clarifying on the terms.