Posted by Peter Ceresole on April 09, 2007 at 18:11:06 from 80.177.22.49 user PeterC.
In Reply to: Re: Right to Roam? posted by Mike Dennis on April 09, 2007 at 16:24:45:
I suppose in western democratic societies we have to accept that someone owns whatever land we encounter, now there are many rights and wrongs to be considered here but as a general rule ownership has to be respected.
That's true. But land ownership is not a 'neutral' issue. In Britain, the origin of a great deal of land ownership is what we would now called theft, taking by force. There are limits to how far back you can go in this, and it would be quite counterproductive to abolish property and with it the social stability that it brings. But you can also have too much stability.
After the war, the Labour government, which had been elected with a huge majority to change the conditions that had led to the depression, the extreme poverty of the '30s, and the war, imposed a confiscatory level of taxation on inheritance. This was designed purposely to break up the old estates; although it now survives, at a much lower level, as a general tax mostly for revenue raising, I'm sure that there's still an element of social justice within it.
The right to roam along the sea shore could also come into that 'reforming' category.