>>2669974>The idea that you are going to go in and start parsing (with legal language) what property is "nature" and thus subject to this so called right to roam is sort of absurd imho and it really gives the government a massive deal of control over how those terms are interpreted. Well, no, it’s actually quite clearly established. The right to roam means that people can freely but respectfully roam in nature, i.e. in forests, meadows, wetlands etc.
The right to roam doesn’t mean that people can go into other people’s yards or stomp around in cultivated fields or whatever it is that you’re worried about.
>Furthermore, you are introducing the concept that the property right of exclusion and private use can be restricted for common useYep, and that’s a good thing when we’re talking about excluding people from nature.
>in an age so rampant with Marxism this is a very very dangerous and unsettling thought considering the masses of jealous and subversive Marxists all over society. Now you’re just being foolish once again.
>The police are not judges who decide when someone is liable for an injury, or negligence.That’s right, but their job is to determine whether a crime took place. If they conclude that it was an accident and that there is no evidence of negligience, the application for summons will be rejected.
>Like some officer is suitable to make a decision on who is negligent or who is liable for an accident etc.They don’t do that. The court will make the decision whether or not there’s a reasonable case for compensations based on the preliminary investigation conducted by the police. This decision then determines whether or not a lawsuit can be brought.
