SENATE BILL: Freedom to Roam Act (Failed)

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I can't support this bill. As someone from a rural area, I can tell you this will cause so many problems.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I can't support this bill. As someone from a rural area, I can tell you this will cause so many problems.

Care to elaborate? I’m undecided here.

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property, if a person can trespass and basically do almost whatever they want on it. Also, just because a person owns land that is undeveloped doesn't make it a lesser type of property.

Dumping garbage and littering on peoples' property are already huge problems in the areas around me from people doing illegal things. Section 7 will be basically impossible to enforce, unless you have cameras all over your property anyone caught will say they never camped on your land before. The things Section 6 and 8 of this bill already happen a lot and go unpunished, so making it easier for people to do this by making it impossible to keep them off your property will make matters worse.

The problems with this bill can only be fully understood if you live in or near a township with like 40-50 people per square mile (or even less).

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Proposal:

SENATE BILL

To codify into law the right of all people to roam and walk the Atlasian countryside, as well as to establish some reasonable limitations on this right

Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section 1: Name
1. This bill may be referred to as the "Freedom to Roam Act"

Section 2: The Right to Roam
1. Every person in the Republic of Atlasia shall have a recognized right to roam and travel across the country, including through means of transport such as by foot, by bicycle, on horseback or with the use of canoes
2. The Atlasian federal government may not impede entrance to federally owned lands other than active military bases, unless there is a compelling national security reason or public interest reason
3. Land owners may impede entrance to areas used actively used for housing, farming or livestock, but they may not impede entrance to any undeveloped or unimproved pieces of land nor to any rivers or lakes in the property, unless said lakes are completely surrounded by areas used actively for the purposes described before.
4. Land Owners shall clearly mark the perimeter of the areas used actively for housing, farming or livestock, as well as provide a path around the areas of their property used for said purposes.
5. People roaming on private property or federal land may not perform any sort of commercial activity while roaming
6. People roaming on private property shall not be allowed to hunt, fish or pick any wild fruits, without the consent of the owner. This right may also be restricted on federal lands (including but not limited to national parks) by the department responsible of internal policy.
7. People roaming shall have the right to set up a camp and sleep for 1 night, but may not sleep in the same spot, nor any spot in a 1 mile radius from their last camping spot, for consecutive nights
3. Nothing in this bill shall be construed as to legalize or otherwise enable destructive activities towards nature, including but not limited to damaging trees or bushes, damaging the habitats and nests of wildlife or polluting nature. People roaming shall also be subject to financial liability for any of the above mentioned destructive activities.

Section 3: Enactment
1. This bill shall become enacted immediately after passage

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Aye

[Esteemed Jimmy]

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property.

Just posting this again if it wasn't clear, unless that is the purpose of this bill and why the amendment is being opposed.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

This bill undermines the whole point of owning private property.

Just posting this again if it wasn't clear, unless that is the purpose of this bill and why the amendment is being opposed.

Just part of the Liebor plan to abolish private property and seize the means of production of course 

Now seriously, I personally think that is a hyperbolic statement.

If you own, for some reason a bunch of absolutely empty countryside with nothing in it, why should people not be allowed to enter? I do know that sometimes fields need to be left without cultivation so that they can recover the nutrients and what not (not sure to what extent fertilizers have made this obsolete though but I suppose it is still a thing to at least some degree). However I would argue that those kinds of land would be covered by this bill.

It's not even like the property title is being taken away from you, you are still able to fencethat empty field or forest or whatever if you start using it for productive purposes.

The issue is why should someone be forced to allow other people to be on the land they bought/own? How they use their land is up to them, not what the government considers "products purposes." There are enough trails/public lands that people can walk through in Atlasia.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

The issue is why should someone be forced to allow other people to be on the land they bought/own? How they use their land is up to them, not what the government considers "productive purposes." There are enough trails/public lands that people can walk through in Atlasia.

I know I won't get an answer to this, but bumping it.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Like I say, if you are doing nothing with the land, you should at the very least allow people to walk through it, assuming they aren't doing any harm. The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

That's not an answer though. Why should they be allowed to walk through it; isn't the purpose of private property to give owners the ability to control how it's used? It's a lot easier to just make trespassing illegal in the first place than to put it on the landowner to prove damage was caused and by who, so this law will easily be abused and lead to tons of littering, dumping, and damage. How do you know a landowner isn't doing something with the land? How does this effect premises liability in the event someone is injured on a landowners land, now that they are allowed to be on it? A lot of landowners use vacant land as a private hunting area during hunting seasons, so having people able to just walk through it especially during these times will negatively impact the landowner's purpose and use of the land. A big appeal of moving to a rural area is privacy, and a lot of houses are built on large parcels with forested land included, so why should the homeowner have to let people be on the land around their house and negate this.

The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

If you can't determine who can be on your own land or prevent trespassers from going on it, is that section really your land anymore?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I object.

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Nay

[Esteemed Jimmy]

I object. The premise of the bill itself is dangerous and no supporter of it has reputed any of these points. And additionally this bill will hurt the environment as it will result in landowners clearing parts of their land just to show it is being developed and used.

Like I say, if you are doing nothing with the land, you should at the very least allow people to walk through it, assuming they aren't doing any harm. The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

That's not an answer though. Why should they be allowed to walk through it; isn't the purpose of private property to give owners the ability to control how it's used? It's a lot easier to just make trespassing illegal in the first place than to put it on the landowner to prove damage was caused and by who, so this law will easily be abused and lead to tons of littering, dumping, and damage. How do you know a landowner isn't doing something with the land? How does this effect premises liability in the event someone is injured on a landowners land, now that they are allowed to be on it? A lot of landowners use vacant land as a private hunting area during hunting seasons, so having people able to just walk through it especially during these times will negatively impact the landowner's purpose and use of the land. A big appeal of moving to a rural area is privacy, and a lot of houses are built on large parcels with forested land included, so why should the homeowner have to let people be on the land around their house and negate this.

The property title is not going to get stripped from you.

If you can't determine who can be on your own land or prevent trespassers from going on it, is that section really your land anymore?

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Aye

[Esteemed Jimmy]

Nay