I love that Luciom is here so that other people can either be revolted when they share opinions with him or at least have their quiet parts said out loud.

right. so personal wealth is okay to be passed down to offspring, but collective wealth as a nation isn't.

out of curiosity, how many immigrants are you personally housing right now?

public ownership for some people means "everyone in the world" lol, not exclusively citizens

The world isn't black and white. You want either one ridiculous extreme - I can't decide who lives in my backyard, or another ridiculous extreme - it's any of your business who crosses an imaginary line possibly thousands of miles from your house.

200000 years ago people could have a private domicile.

and 200,000 years ago if someone physically stronger than you wanted said domicile, they just took it.

eventually we formed tribes. strength in numbers, that sort of thing, so that when a stronger stranger came along, he couldn't just take your domicile (and mate) from you.

soon after we formed nations, with the same thought process in mind.

and here we are. enjoying the fruits of our forefathers. some of us want to protect those fruits. others want to give them away to strangers.

You're a stranger.

well, it is my business, for i am a citizen of the USA.

for now. soon i will be in your backyard, helping you to live out your utopian paradise where none of us own anything.

i am assuming there will already be immigrants there when i arrive. obviously, you feel so strongly about immigration that you are housing some right now.

or are you like the hypocrites on martha's vineyard, who sent all the immigrants they begged for into the city of boston, to live off of vouchers and to be put up in motels paid for by the state?

edit: also, fwiw, my grandfather was full blooded native american....so, im not really a stranger to this land.

Are you a hypocrite who pretends he doesn't hate freedom?

i love freedom. its why i support immigration laws.

let us know when you've personally housed those immigrants and not placed the burden on taxpayers who don't agree with you.

sublime, I don't think you don't have the right to keep someone out of your backyard. (I actually don't have the legal right to decide because I don't own any property). I just don't think San Diego/Tijuana is your backyard. Some things are reasonably ownable and others aren't. It's a fact that some things are legally ownable and others aren't and you are just used to those laws so you think they are normal.

You don't love freedom.

and the reason some things are legally ownable and others not, is because we collectively as a nation deemed them so.

And some of those decisions are dumb and some are immoral and some of them are freedom-hating.

Look up the right to roam in Scandinavia. That's some freedom loving there. Not that they are freedom lovers all around necessarily, but that's some enviable freedom there.

every piece of land is legally owned by some entity in the USA afaik, it's just that some entities are public ones, which means American public ones, the owners are American citizens (or state or local residents who are American citizens depending on the entity), not "every human being alive"

all those countries have immigration laws as well.

Of course and they are fairly strict. USA used to be a pretty free country, like back when my great grandparents came here.

But still, the right to roam is an example of freedom that Americans haven't really had maybe ever or at least thought about for a long time. The freedom haters take freedoms bit by bit until you barely know what you're missing unless you guard them. But people are trying to tear down the effin Statue of Liberty now. Aholes are trying to eliminate birth right citizenship. The kinds of things that made America somewhat special in the past. Freedom haters are winning.

lol Denmark paid taxpayers money to publish ads in newspaper and media in northern Africa to tell people to stay the **** away from Denmark roflmao.

Finland has one of the lowest percentages of foreign born in europe

Yeah, there are racists there for sure. I was in Denmark and a tour guide was bragging about how they made Muslim people applying for citizenship shake hands with the opposite sex because they hate freedom of religion.

I mean I said they don't necessarily love freedom generally, but I guess you guys are just doing "bad faith".

microbet, you'd love china where there is no private ownership of land and you can therefore hike/camp anywhere you damn please out in the wilderness

as for the Swedish right to roam, it's not as cut and dry as you paint it to be, it has a lot of limits to it



so it's pretty much only valid for what is the equivalent of BLM land in the USA

so our laws are basically identical with Sweden


I do a lot of backcountry camping all over the world, I'm even planning on doing a bike ride from Seattle to DC this summer where I'll be mostly camping along the way

this is your main issue, you're a smart guy but you get so emotionally caught up in things that you seek confirmation bias and this leads you to post lol things like Swedish right to roam indicating they are freer than Americans and we in fact have the same exact laws

in fact, we even have laws regarding private property does not extend to the water and thus you can't prevent people from fishing on your property in America

this is a thing that regularly comes up in Maine as wealthy retirees buy ocean front property and then throw a hissy fit that people are then allowed to walk, fish, clam, etc right in "their backyard" - I've had to explain the law to a number of elderly people who asked me not to fish on "their property" before

I didn't really do a lot of painting, did I? But that's cool in China.


From the wiki on freedom to roam

"Today these rights underpin opportunities for outdoor recreation in several of the Nordic countries, providing the opportunity to hike across or camp on another's land (e.g. in Sweden for one or two nights), boating on someone else's waters, and picking wildflowers, mushrooms and berries. However, with these rights come responsibilities; that is, an obligation neither to harm, disturb, litter, nor to damage wildlife or crops"

That's not the same as BLM land. It's the right to be on "private" property as long as you don't mess it up. There are restrictions about trampling crops or being within 100' or something of someone's house.

In Norway it's 150 meters

"People are allowed to camp at least 150 metres away from the nearest inhabited house or cottage."

I'm trying to plan, with some other people, about a week long hiking trip at the end of next summer and the lotteries and permits for stuff like the John Muir Trail is pretty annoying and we're probably not going to be able to set dates early enough to do something like that.

I bicycled from Seattle to San Francisco years ago and camped all but one night.

We don't have the same laws and BLM and National Forests and Parks are public land.

In California the coast is all public (though that doesn't always mean open and you sure can't just camp anywhere) and it's awesome. Aholes in places like Malibu try to keep people off the beach in front of their houses, but they aren't allowed to.

I think people should be able to use a reasonable amount of land and natural resources securely and that, for the good of all, people should allow the use of natural resources where it is justified and everyone receives a benefit from it, but it's not any kind of fundamental right. Fundamentally monopolization of land or other natural resources is always unfair/theft and needs justification - better justification than some country I was born in won some wars in the past.

Henry George had a lot of this right and a fairly reasonable way to address it in modern society. (Crocodile Dundee had it right too)