On: 'Right to roam' movement fights to give the common...

[hansjorg]

The damage being that people have been conditioned to being unfree in a very fundamental sense.

[s1artibartfast → hansjorg]

can you expand on that?

I'm unfree in a lot of ways. Not all of them damaging. I cant walk into someone's house, use their toothbrush, and grope them.

It sounds like there is some theory of damage stemming from lack of specific freedoms, but it certainly hasn't been articulated.

[hansjorg → s1artibartfast]

For some people freedom means being able to violently deny others to roam the land, to deny access lakes, to deny foraging for berries and mushrooms and even to deny them access to the coastline and the ocean.

For them, freedom might entail being able to deny these basic modes of being e.g. based on monetary worth, social standing or even ethnicity (like country clubs in the US).

If that's what you consider freedom, I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you otherwise.

[s1artibartfast → hansjorg]

you didnt answer the question about what "the damage" is. It is a simple question.

Instead, you evaded it and tried to redirect the topic.

[hansjorg → s1artibartfast]

I already explained what I meant by damage. Being unable to see how the freedom of a tiny minority shouldn't trump the freedom of basic modes of being of the vast majority, that's damage.

[s1artibartfast → hansjorg]

What are "freedoms of basic modes of being"?

Is there a lexicon guide I should be referencing with definitions to these vague phrases.

[ta1243 → s1artibartfast]

The use of the land is removed from the people

[s1artibartfast → ta1243]

So the damage is opportunity loss. What makes it a legitimate grievance opposed to a bogus one?

There are lots things that were once possible, but no longer are.

Of course, there is also the question of who "the people" are.