An example from Sweden. A commercial company organised a camping trip where one of the stops where on a persons garden. So they pretty much had different campers there everyday. Should a commercial company really be allowed to "rent" out your garden to campers?
Freedom to roam does not need to be freedom to enter people's garden. At least in Norway, the law requires you to stay a minimum distance from dwellings, and has a variety of requirements to ensure you're not a nuisance.
There are many possible tradeoffs there other than specifically the Norwegian or Swedish variants to allow most activities unhindered without affecting landowners much.
Freedom to roam does not need to be freedom to enter people's garden. At least in Norway, the law requires you to stay a minimum distance from dwellings, and has a variety of requirements to ensure you're not a nuisance.
Do you only support laws if there exist no downsides no matter how small? Has there ever been any such law?
That said, if we don’t companies engaging in those kinds of practices, it seems more practical to ban those practices than to remove all rights to access entirely.
The freedom to roam in Sweden and Norway is already limited and not absolute. No one supporting such freedoms had been arguing the freedom should be unlimited. You never needed to make this point because it was obvious to everyone in the conversation.
Comments
An example from Sweden. A commercial company organised a camping trip where one of the stops where on a persons garden. So they pretty much had different campers there everyday. Should a commercial company really be allowed to "rent" out your garden to campers?
Freedom to roam does not need to be freedom to enter people's garden. At least in Norway, the law requires you to stay a minimum distance from dwellings, and has a variety of requirements to ensure you're not a nuisance.
There are many possible tradeoffs there other than specifically the Norwegian or Swedish variants to allow most activities unhindered without affecting landowners much.
Sweden has similar restrictions.
Yea. That is my point. It is a great freedom but there needs to be a balance.
Do you only support laws if there exist no downsides no matter how small? Has there ever been any such law?
That said, if we don’t companies engaging in those kinds of practices, it seems more practical to ban those practices than to remove all rights to access entirely.
My point is more that it has to be a freedom that is limited and not absolute.
The freedom to roam in Sweden and Norway is already limited and not absolute. No one supporting such freedoms had been arguing the freedom should be unlimited. You never needed to make this point because it was obvious to everyone in the conversation.