Ecopoeia
15-02-2006, 14:26
The Issue
An increasing number of land owners have been fencing off footpaths which run through or near their property and as a result you have been petitioned by The Rambler's and Hiker's Association to allow the 'right to roam'.
The Debate
1. Pip Hendrikson, a famous hiker of Anarcho-Dandyists's countryside, storms into your office, arms waving dangerously. "These pompous land owners are fencing off hundreds of years of tradition! The public should have right of way by law! It is every man's right to be able to enjoy the scenic beauty of our native lands and I don't see why some toffee-nosed prat should be the only person allowed to walk around his hundreds of acres of land when most of us don't even have one! It's simply unforgivable! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going for a walk! Wherever I ruddy well like!"
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
2. "It's trespass, plain and simple," says Freddy McAlpin, wealthy owner of six mansions. "My home is my castle! If these smelly ramblers think they can abuse and defile my land, they should start thinking again! You've got to look at this reasonably: where people go, pollution follows. Before I know it I'm going to have litter in my fields, drunken parties in my woods, and more eroded footpaths than I can count! Will they be the ones paying to have it all maintained? Not likely! I say no to this 'right to roam' rubbish! This land is mine, and I intend to keep it that way."
[Accept]
3. "There's an opportunity in every problem," says Sue-Ann Shiomi, your Minister of Rural Affairs. "And there's always some sort of compromise. We could simply allocate some government funding to teams of environmental workers to maintain and promote our network of footpaths that anyone may use... for a price. Think of the money we could get from all those hikers and ramblers! Not to mention the tourists, birdwatchers, and hippies! Everybody wins! Except for those who can't afford the fees, I guess, but you can't please everyone."
[Accept]
____________________________________________________
This is a well-written issue, no complaints there. However, choosing option (1) for Ecopoeia led to a decrease in Civil Rights (from Excessive to World Benchmark). I'm struggling to see a justification for this. One could argue that the landowner's rights are impinged on, but surely this is more than counterbalanced by the extension of rights for the roamer?
Or is this another one of those issues that only increases values where they are not already very high (and then decreases them)? Another example is the filibuster issue, where allowing the filibuster will increase PFs unless they're already at (this is a guess) Excessive or higher, in which cases it decreases them.
Comments are appreciated.
Thanks
Eco
An increasing number of land owners have been fencing off footpaths which run through or near their property and as a result you have been petitioned by The Rambler's and Hiker's Association to allow the 'right to roam'.
The Debate
1. Pip Hendrikson, a famous hiker of Anarcho-Dandyists's countryside, storms into your office, arms waving dangerously. "These pompous land owners are fencing off hundreds of years of tradition! The public should have right of way by law! It is every man's right to be able to enjoy the scenic beauty of our native lands and I don't see why some toffee-nosed prat should be the only person allowed to walk around his hundreds of acres of land when most of us don't even have one! It's simply unforgivable! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going for a walk! Wherever I ruddy well like!"
This is the position your government is preparing to adopt.
2. "It's trespass, plain and simple," says Freddy McAlpin, wealthy owner of six mansions. "My home is my castle! If these smelly ramblers think they can abuse and defile my land, they should start thinking again! You've got to look at this reasonably: where people go, pollution follows. Before I know it I'm going to have litter in my fields, drunken parties in my woods, and more eroded footpaths than I can count! Will they be the ones paying to have it all maintained? Not likely! I say no to this 'right to roam' rubbish! This land is mine, and I intend to keep it that way."
[Accept]
3. "There's an opportunity in every problem," says Sue-Ann Shiomi, your Minister of Rural Affairs. "And there's always some sort of compromise. We could simply allocate some government funding to teams of environmental workers to maintain and promote our network of footpaths that anyone may use... for a price. Think of the money we could get from all those hikers and ramblers! Not to mention the tourists, birdwatchers, and hippies! Everybody wins! Except for those who can't afford the fees, I guess, but you can't please everyone."
[Accept]
____________________________________________________
This is a well-written issue, no complaints there. However, choosing option (1) for Ecopoeia led to a decrease in Civil Rights (from Excessive to World Benchmark). I'm struggling to see a justification for this. One could argue that the landowner's rights are impinged on, but surely this is more than counterbalanced by the extension of rights for the roamer?
Or is this another one of those issues that only increases values where they are not already very high (and then decreases them)? Another example is the filibuster issue, where allowing the filibuster will increase PFs unless they're already at (this is a guess) Excessive or higher, in which cases it decreases them.
Comments are appreciated.
Thanks
Eco