RE: Ethics of landownership

Michael, you missed my point. It wasn't that people can or can't walk around
the countryside. It was that they can't own it and control their destiny on
the land they live on.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Roberts [mailto:michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 12:26 PM
> To: Glenn Morton; asa@calvin.edu; John W Burgeson
> Subject: Re: Ethics of landownership
>
>
> I could spend ages responding to Glenn in the spirit of 1812! The root of
> the problem is the forcing of crofters off their lands 200 years (and so
> many sailed across the pond) and the land was stolen from them.
> One good thing in Scotland is that much is open to the public - if you can
> wade through peat bogs which idiots like me enjoy. In England much private
> land can be accessed by a network of public footpaths where walkers have a
> right to be. Round here there are a maze of public footpaths but
> much of the
> hills of Bowland have no access yet - but if the Duke of
> Westminster doesnt
> see me.... This lack of open land surprised me in SC as there were only a
> few places where one could explore - Kings Mountain was great and
> Table Rock
> climbed on freezing january day with all waterfalls frozen.
>
> I think it is good that fewer british have guns, but I am no Charlton
> Heston.
>
> I wont continue as I think this will bore others and has no
> relevance to the
> ASA.
>
> I would not say our govt is very left at all just Thatcherite
> tories in pink
> jumpsuits. There is also a big difference between communism and british
> socialism which had roots in both Chartism and Methodism of the 19th
> century.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
Received on Sun Dec 14 13:53:17 2003