>>12084621. It's absurd and downright illogical to suppose that more people living innawoods is better for the environment than less people living innawoods. The act of building a shelter is worse for the environment versus not building a shelter.
2. Admittedly this is a poor example from me, but you aren't challenging my actual point. To clarify, consider this (hopefully better and more concise) example.
So let's say that 1000 people live in a country and all pay taxes, and let's say that country has public lands available for recreational purposes, and thus these public lands are maintained for with taxes. So one lone citizen (let's say you, just for example) decide to build a permanent shelter on these lands. As a logical consequence of the way the laws in this country work, the rest of the population each have a 1/999 say in what you're allowed to do with that land, or even if you're allowed to use it at all. Since it's absurd for public officials, law enforcement, and even legal code itself to have to take in to account 1000 different viewpoints about a very small area of land, they make a law that says "thou canst not build permanent shelters on public lands." A goodly portion of those 999 other people would perhaps have preferred you to fuck off anyway.
I think this example is not an unreasonable approximation of the reality of the situation, at least with respect to most countries that have public lands. These laws exist for a reason other than to foil your plans: they exist for the greater good of the public.
Maybe your attitude toward this is "fuck the law!" Well... that's fine if you're willing for them to try to fuck you right back. Maybe you'd genuinely be more happy with a plywood and sheet-metal shelter than whatever your current living conditions are. Maybe you'd be willing to fight and die to defend your plywood and metal shelter when public officials come to evict you. That's your prerogative.
