tandempower

It's far more effective to appear to universal/generalized logic than to cite specific regimes. Citing specific regimes gives opponents the easy option of saying, "well this is not Scotland," or, "if you like Scandinavia so much, why don't you go live there?" The simple fact is that reason supercedes norms. Unreasonable norms can survive for a while once their unreasonability is exposed, but not forever. The only reason unreasonable culture persists is because people consent to accepting it by arbitrary reference to tradition, etc. They say, "maybe it's wrong, but that's just the way it is." If it's wrong, people won't be able to tolerate it forever.

I have no idea what could possibly be unfeasible about people availing areas of land to permitted hiker/bikers. An even greater incentive would be to give them a tax exemption in exchange for a conservation/camping easement. If the law says campers camp at their liability and property owners can file complaints that could ultimately revoke campers' licenses, many more people would feel comfortable availing an area of land in this way. . . especially if a public information campaign explained the multi-day nature of long distance biking/hiking travel.

This can work against you. People like to shoot others' ideas down. Sometimes it's better to share ideas freely and let someone with political aspirations put their name on the idea to gain some work experience in the career field they're pursuing.

This is basically what I"m doing talking about it online. I also informally talk about it with people I meet who have rural land or when I camp in a campground, I talk about it with the managers and/or employees.

I intentionally leave out specific place information to keep discussion on the general level. If this discourse applies to some forum user's experience and interests, great. If not, they won't bother with the thread. It's that simple really. No need to go off defining places that will lead to stereotyping due to partial knowledge of a place. Enough of that goes on in this world, don't you think?

You really think like a statistician and I don't think I'm ever going to convince you that it's not a good way of thinking, let alone make you see that there are other, better ways of thinking. All I can say is that when I was small, they taught kids that just because everyone else is doing something doesn't make it right and doesn't mean you should do it. It was called 'peer pressure' and it was associated with drug-pushing. Thus I can't legitimately support or criticize something on the basis of 'what others do,' whether those others are individual people or collective identities like cities and nations.