The proletariat have the right to roam the countryside.

1. Like most debates on this site, the first task is guess what the resolution is. The literal statement offered makes no sense, because using any reasonable definitions the proletariat is already allowed to roam the countryside. I'll guess that the resolution is "In the countryside, the law should allow trespassing, with certain exceptions at the discretion of the government." Where "in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land," http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... Under the resolution, the property owner does not authorize entry, rather the government usurps the rights of the owner and authorizes entry. 2. Pro offers the new right to trespass only to the proletariat, "The class of industrial wage earners who, possessing neither capital nor production means, must earn their living by selling their labor." http://www.answers.com... So, for example, farmers, not being industrial wage earners, would not have the new right to trespass. Office workers on holiday, not being industrial workers, would be denied equal rights. I'll let Pro explain the logic behind that before I respond. For now, I'll assume it is just part of the fog of dopiness around the resolution. 3. Let's suppose that Pro's house is in the countryside. His backyard is 10 m x 10 m, but there is a possibility that mushrooms might be growing there. So does the proletariat get to roam Pro's backyard? How about if his backyard is larger? Those with large lands include celebrities of great interest to some people. What mechanism will be used to decide whether or not restrictions are reasonable? The default, according to Pro, is that access is permissible. So therefore there must be some mechanism by which the public is notified as to what activities are permitted and where they are permitted. That implies that every piece of property that could be reasonably supposed to be "countryside" has to be posted with the permissions and prohibitions. Moreover, the owner cannot make the decision as to what is permitted and what is not. If the owner were permitted to do that he would be acting like an owner, and the point of the resolution is to eliminate an owners rights to determine use of his land. Therefore, it will come down to government bureaucracy, per a "Land Use Office," to make the decision. The owner might want to restrict access because he is very concerned with the nesting environment of the Great Bustard http://en.wikipedia.org... on his property. Should the owner's personal concern take precedence over the public's right to roam? Maybe Great Bustards are universally thought important by government as well, perhaps not. What of preserving the natural environment of Nuttall's locoweed? Is that important enough to restrict access, or will the government allow them to be stomped? The government is not qualified to make decisions about how much privacy is enough or what is important enough to protect. The simply don't have the knowledge, and taxpayers should not have to pay them to learn. In the real world, the government will make decisions based upon political considerations. That is inevitably unjust. 4. The owner of the property ought to have the rights to collect and sell the mushrooms, rocks, or whatever else is on the property. It is impractical to allow access to the property while enforcing prohibitions on what can be taken from the property. It's like "the proletariat should be allowed to roam through bank vaults, so long as they don't take any money." The same problem exists with respect to damaging the property. Theoretical notions of "so long as they don't" fail in actual practice. 5. Ordinarily, liability laws require that if an owner provides access to his property, the owner is responsible for hazards on the property. With the default being public access, for what is the owner responsible? Will it become the government's job to locate and fix or mark off hazards? Why should taxpayers pay for that? On the other hand, why should the government assume liability for hazards that were previously the responsibility of the owner? If the government now determines access, it would be logical they take full responsibility. to do otherwise would be unfair. 6. Currently owners have the rights to control their property. They paid for the property under the assumption that they would have the rights to it. If government seizes some of those rights, then the government should pay for it. If they don't, it is unfair. If they do, taxpayers are burdened for the sake of a very few roamers. The government already provides parks and other lands. "Today, a substantial amount of Britain, 10 million acres or about 19 percent, is in public ownership" http://www.caledonia.org.uk... In the US, federal, state and local governments own 37 percent of the land. http://www.ers.usda.gov... There is already plenty of public lands avail for roaming. If the people determine they want more, they should by it and dedicate it to public use, not demand that private citizens maintain parks for public use. 7. One alternative to the resolution is to keep private ownership rights the default, but post exceptions. In rural areas of the US, it's fairly common to put up signs allowing hunters on property. The laws are then written for that specific exception, and resolve all the issues of liability. The owner won't allow access if there is something he is worried about protecting. The owner may voluntarily grant access without compensation, or the government can pay the owner a yearly fee. Some localities buy permanent "development rights" which leave the owner with a subset of his rights in return for a fee. ================= The resolution would create a bureaucratic mess for determining what private use of land is allowed and not allowed, and the determination would be subject to political abuse. the resolution deprives property owners of rights without just compensation, and it makes private property subject to theft and abuse. A far more reasonable alternative for increasing public access is to carve voluntary and publicly-purchased exceptions to property rights. The resolution is negated.