The proletariat have the right to roam the countryside.

Pro posed the debate generally, going so far as to cite Slovakia (home of the Great Bustard) as an example of a place where property rights ought to be diminished. However in arguing his case, he cites only the examples of the estates of British aristocracy. That leads to Pro supposing that "land" equates to "parks" or something like a park that has no practical use. It also leads to Pro supposing that we all should hate rich or aristocratic landowners and feel free to take what they have. Such is not the general case as Pro supposes. America is full of landowners who are neither rich nor aristocratic, and many put their land to practical use. American society is also highly mobile; the correlation between parental wealth and offspring wealth disappears in two generations. The appeal of hating the rich diminishes if you think you or your children can become rich. In parts of the world other than the US and the UK there is even less land that fits Pro's paradigm of idle parkland. People in many places put their land to use to make a living, and so protecting their property relates directly to their survival. Whether one hates the rich or not, property rights are still fundamental and should not be casually abridged as the resolution proposes. Pro's sole justification is that the rich have something we want, therefore we ought to simply take it. Human rights ought not be doled out and withdrawn according to a caste system. That's profoundly unfair. 1, 2. Pro agrees upon the resolution and agrees that "proletariat" was misused in the original statement of the resolution. I'm not sure if misusing "proletariat" is in the class of spelling errors or what it is, but it's something. 3. Pro claims, "Surely, we would all agree that the countryside should not be the sole preserve of those few privileged people that can either afford to buy country estates or pay exorbitant amounts of money to attend shooting parties, hunt meetings, gymkhanas and other rural pursuits that have traditionally excluded the less well off?" Hah! In the U.S. it's not the rich who hunt, fish, and generally romp around outdoors, it is what Pro would call the proletariat. It's the elite liberal politicians who feel compelled to buy unnaturally sharp hunting costumes to provide photo opportunities pretending they are like the average person. In any case, I agree everyone should have access to the countryside. If Britain has too few parks, then the government ought to legally acquire some of those aristocratic estates and make parks out of them. Seizing property on grounds of class warfare is a violation of rights and flatly dishonest. If the government can seize the property of an upper class, they are then empowered to seize your property as well. Pro suggests that Eastern bloc countries would eagerly greet a return of Big Brother asserting dominance over private property. I don't believe it. Those people remember what Big Brother did the last time he was in charge. 4. I claimed that government was not in a position to decide what was valuable on a piece of property, nor could they protect the property from damage. Pro responded it was not a problem because trespassers can be uniformly counted upon to know what is valuable and uphold those values, and moreover none of the new trespassers would want to steal anything. In some places that is probably true. So places have relatively little that can be damaged and locals who frequent them can be counted upon for honesty. However, the resolution is a worldwide presumption to that effect, and it is clearly unjustified. The presumption should be against trespassing, with exceptions proved case by case. 5. I claimed that a presumption in favor of legal trespass muddled the responsibility for keeping the property safe. Pro essentially passed over the issue, asserting it wouldn't be a problem. Quite possible the English countryside is safe, so it isn't a major issue there. However, the world is full of very hazardous places. It's full of ravines, rock slides, avalanche zones, flash flood zones, and all manner of hazards. The problem is pretty well solved when the presumption is that property is off limits. However, when that presumption is reversed, the government then gets the burden of marking and policing all the hazards. That's an unwarranted, taxpayer burden. 6. I argued that people paid for the property they owned, and that if the public wants to do something with it they should pay for it. Being feudal land baron in England is not as easy as it used to be, so there are many estates up for sale. The Panmure Estate is an example.http://www.prnewswire.co.uk.... Moreover, with the finances being difficult as they are, public access rights could be purchased. I see nothing in Pro's rebuttal other than "there is no need to pay for it, because we can steal it." That is unethical. 7. I noted that there are proven mechanisms by with property rights can be maintained, but access granted on a case by case basis taking into account the considerations I have pointed out. Pro merely asserts that there a public right to take property without compensation, whether there are reasonable alternatives or not. Pro argues that compensation for land use is reasonable provided that land subsidies are removed. I agree completely. Therefore Pro agrees that the resolution fails. =============== This debate is over property rights. Pro supposes that landowners having less than ten acres should maintain property rights, but those owning over ten acres should not have property rights. This is fundamental inequality that should not be tolerated. People who own land are best equipped to know its virtues and liabilities, not the government. Pro offers a idyllic picture of English country estates rules by resident aristocracy. That's not a reliable model even for the UK, and it is certainly not a valid paradigm for the rest of the world. The resolution is negated.