Private property versus personal property is something i have been saying for years, glad to see someone else perspective about it.
I have a different angle then calling it theft, in my perspective a law can only ever be a suggestion because there is nothing in physics that stops me breaking it. We choose to follow laws and i am master of my own choices.
Therefor crime does not actually exist, only variable levels of asocial or hurtfull behavior which may get a response in public backlash. Basic human karma. When a bird grabs a gem, we dont call it stealing. When a wild animal kills we don’t charge it with murder.
Taking someone personal property is harm and asocial. Living identities are entitles to their personal belongings. The house they live, the clothes they wear, the family heirlooms that represents the emotional bond with past family.
Taking a bread from a local bakery without paying is asocial because the bakker who owns the bakery worked for that Bread to maintain their personal lives And to continue to provide for the community.
Taking all the bread In a supermarket chain is asocial, even if you pay form it because now others may not have any.
Grabbing a bread from a supermarket chain without paying because you can barely afford anything otherwise only hurst vague corporate profit. Neither the employees or manager are hurt and the big boss is living a mansion life in another country. There is nothing asocial about this type of “theft”, in fact its asocial from all off society to not provide free food and things to hungry weak and poor.
Obi@sopuli.xyz 1 year ago
I got another layer of radicalisation recently when on vacation, we wanted to go look at magnificent cliffs on the west coast of Ireland, a true natural wonder. The whole fucking place was private property, big sign at the entrance stating so, had to pay for parking and got walking up the hill to go watch the cliffs.
I was furious, this is an awe inspiring piece of nature, how can some fat cat just buy the land and charge people for the privilege of watching nature. Not even like they were offering any service, all there was was a shoddy barrier and some gravel for the path (which it would be fine if it either weren’t there).
Now, if this was managed by a non-profit or the government and they charged something to pay for maintenance, add attractions, or even just to pad out taxes for the local communities, then fine. But this wasn’t it, it was very clearly private as in “some rich banker from London” private.
Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Man, that sucks. Here in Scandinavia we have “right to roam” laws, which means you are allowed to walk around and even camp on any private property, as long as you’re not camping on farmland or too close to a residence.
But beyond that I think any land not being used for farming or housing should be illegal to own privately. Nature belongs to all of us.
KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 year ago
These “roaming” laws are kind of backwards. I have no problem with people owning large tracts of land. In the US there’s tons of it. You can buy it for like $50 per acre in some places, so it’s accessible to everyone.
No one should be able to just camp on your land. What if you planned a picnic or game or just want to chill out? Why should someone else be able to just set up a tent?
But the US has a great system of National Parks, State Parks, Regional Parks, etc. in all the best places. So great places to camp and fish and hike are always available.
And in some states (CA for example) beach access can’t be restricted by private land. You literally can’t own the beach, even if you live on it. If you have a path to the beach, anyone can walk on it to access the beach. No, they can’t camp on your property but they may be able to on the beach (depending on the park rules). You can literally walk under million dollar homes in Malibu because they’re on the beach but don’t own it.