Comment by igorkraw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by igorkraw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"private property is subordinate to the common good" is even in our "Constitution" (grundgesetz, literally foundational law), although it has been neutered by precedent and other laws.

The right of way is a concept which is still strong in a bunch of countries, including England and famously Norway where "Allemansretten" allows "all men" the right to camp in public spaces.

I personally find these habitual rights an interesting expression of positive freedom, laws and customs limiting the power of those that have a lot of it (i.e., property owners) to monopolise and exploit, thus creating a public good. I think we should have more of it, especially in the physical but also the digital realm.

Particularly, the concept of adversarial interoperability https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/adversarial-interopera... is connected, it would be a different world of Google, Facebook and any other platform were obligated to make their internal APIs and documentation available at cost+a legislated profit margin do anyone can be compatible with them.

Scotland is a much better example of "right to roam" than England.

Very generally, England allows a right to cross property on foot. But, that doesn't include camping, cycling, etc. The list of allowances is relatively short and exceptions relatively long.

Scotland allows all a lot more freedom to roam, including cycling and camping. I don't recall exactly how it's codified, but it's approximately a default right to access, with limited exceptions (close proximity to homes, farms with active lambing, estates during hunting season, stuff like that).

> The right of way is a concept which is still strong in a bunch of countries, including England and famously Norway where "Allemansretten" allows "all men" the right to camp in public spaces.

This is like saying France and the US both have freedom of speech. Technically true but the difference in how strong the laws are between Nordic countries and England is enormous.

This is a great post. When I moved away from the United States, and started to learn -- in earnest -- about other countries, I was surprised to learn about "freedom of speech" in other highly-developed, liberal democracies. Two specific things come to mind: slander/defamation/blasphemy and pro-Nazi (German National Socialist) material. Initially, I was aghast -- "Why isn't 'everything' allowed?". Over time, I began to understand that each nation and society needs to define their own version of "freedom of speech" -- and what it means to be a liberal democracy. As a good example: Read the Wiki page for Geert Wilders. He is a hateful person who says many dreadful, discriminatory things. More than once, he has lost court trials in Nederlands over hate speech. I recall once that he was fined zero euros. Complex! And, there are some nations where it feels like they voluntarily use "freedom of speech" less than Europe/US/CAN/AU/NZ/SouthAmerica -- like East Asia (Taiwan, Japan, South Korea) and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia -- don't get me started about Singapore!) And South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, etc.) are so culturally diverse and complex that I cannot begin to generalise.

You wrote: <<Technically true but the difference in how strong the laws are between Nordic countries and England is enormous.>>

I am sure you were thinking of a specific example when you wrote this post! Can you share it? It would be nice to learn.

It's surreal as an American watching a couple of UK photographers on YouTube just stroll through random gates and cross land without any locks or "No Trespassing" signs. Meanwhile, I got a shotgun shoved in my face for walking too close for the comfort of the owner of a house on the other side of a highway's shoulder. I'm pretty sure brandishing is a crime in Georgia, but I was a teen and wasn't about to argue with someone who could end me with a twitch.

you would like Geowizard's crossing a country in a straight line series on youtube

I once read this is actually tied to the degree of agriculture vs animal raising.

Because animals are easily stolen, cultures around animals as food, tend to consider weapon ownership essential, and tend to think highly of self defense and whatnot.

These same cultures also tend to believe strongly in "hospitality", in the sense that if you have guests you need to take care of them and whatnot, because you might need to be someone guest too.

Meanwhile plant-based cultures tend instead to favor things like schedules, calendars, seasons, festivals and so on, because this is what essential to their food instead, meanwhile it doesn't matter if someone is strolling in your land when it is not harvest season, the person won't steal your food.

In low population density areas you can generally walk around freely in nature, and the denser population get, the more restricted things are.

This is not because Norwegians are civic minded altruists and Singaporeans selfish jerks. It mostly reflects what is practical.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com