The proletariat have the right to roam the countryside.

Pro claims, "First of all, I should like to clarify that the right of the population to enjoy the natural beauty in no way amounts to taking from the rich to give to the poor as my opponent implies." Someone, whether they are rich or poor, buys a piece of property and buying the property means that the owner has certain rights related to the space. In fact there is nothing to the ownership other than rights -- the property cannot be carried away, eaten, consumed, or in anyway used other than through the rights conveyed by ownership. So when the government removes some rights from the property without compensation to the owner, that is theft. Pro justifies the theft by claiming that property owners are rich, but that is not generally the case, and it is theft whether the owner is rich or not. Pro argued that nothing is stolen because, "property owners will still be able to buy and sell land without let or hindrance." Because the land has no value beyond rights of use, taking away rights removes value. Government can, and does, sterilize land through regulations that prevent any use whatsoever. A wetlands preservation law in the US rendered certain land completely valueless by requiring that it could not be touched. Owners could buy and sell it, but it was worthless. Many ended up donating it to a charity to escape the taxes that were nonetheless imposed. It was 100% theft without compensation. The current resolution does not render land valueless, but it just as clearly diminishes the value by diminishing the rights to control use. I suggested that in many cases, the government could purchase public rights of access for a modest fee. Pro did not respond. Why should one pay for something that can be stolen? And it is to be stolen from the "hateful" people who own ten acres or more, so no problem. In the US in some places ten acres can be purchased for $3000. Clearly rich land barons who deserve punishment? In the US, a new Supreme Court justice was nominated recently. The oath for justices is that they must provide equal justice to the rich and poor. This is required for a just society. Pro proposes that those owning more than ten acres of land ought to have fewer property rights than those holding less than ten acres. This is unacceptable. Pro says, "All that is being required of those in society privileged enough to own open countryside is to adopt a sense of noblesse oblige and share their good fortune with other people by allowing them reasonable access to their land." That concept has no bounds. I hear that Pro has a very nice living room. So there should be public access to it. All that is being required of those in society privileged enough to own nice living rooms is to adopt a sense of noblesse oblige and share their good fortune with other people by allowing them reasonable access to their living rooms. If Pro has some objection, he can take his case to the Office of Nice Room Access and plead it before the government bureaucrats who are in control. Surely they will come up with an equitable compromise ... right? "It is not about hating the rich, but rich people who behave so selfishly are hated, and deservedly so." Pro contradicts himself within a single sentence. It's not about hating the rich, but of course we should hate the rich and therefore set about stealing from them. Perhaps Pro believes that it's a better justification if we don't hate the rich for having money, but rather hate them for keeping it. That is not a better justification. It's hatred motivated by greed. Pro goes on, "My opponent went on to argue that the presumption should be that somebody seeking to access private land are doing so for nefarious purposes, even though this is very rarely the case. At best, this is punishing the many for the crimes of the few and, at worst, it is a draconian repression of the free movement of the masses only justified by the most spurious of arguments." Banks have vaults to protect the money they store. But wait, very few people are bank robbers. The vaults keep the masses of people who might enjoy looking at the money from enjoying it just out of fear of some rare case of nefarious action. So therefore bank vaults are a draconian repression of the freedom of the masses. Got that? It's nonsense, of course. People who own something get to decide what they want to do to protect it. Many landowners decide there is nothing particular to protect, so they allow public access. Others worry about their privacy, the pristine nature of the land, special things on the land, or hidden hazards that pose liability problems. It's the owner's right and responsibility to resolve those questions. I challenged that the government does not have the facts to make those decisions and that taxpayers should not be paying for any such unnecessary government function. Pro did not respond to either challenge, just pronouncing them non-problems. Pro concedes, "the ‘braying toffs' that infest the rural shires of England are an anachronism outside this country." I'm not sure if we have braying toffs or not. I suspect that we have some braying toffs out there somewhere, but I'd have to research it. My point however, is that the resolution assumes a paradigm in which rich people own park-like land of little practical use, and that there is a gentile populace has no desire for anything but an occasional stroll across it. That model is nonsense, and I gave the reasons and examples, which Pro just ignored. I gave the solution to the acute problem in the English countryside. If the people want more parks, they should buy and maintain some of the country estates. Many are for sale, so there is no problem with supply. A cheaper solution is to by public rights to limited access at fair value. If the lands are getting some government subsidy, get rid of the subsidy and offer to buy access instead. This allows a deal for liability and limits to access to be crafted case-by-case and it preserves the owners property rights. Pro did not argue that my method was unfair or unworkable. He apparently thinks there is no need to buy anything that can be stolen. Rights are real things, so, yes, they can be stolen. Pro's case is built upon an alleged right to roam the countryside. No such right exists, nor has it existed since times of nomadic society. Property rights do exist, and have existed for many centuries. Those rights exist for good reasons. They are among the important rights of individuals. Abolishing them puts the control in the sole possession of government. The resolution is negated.