At least we should have a law that people can pass through that land like they have in Scotland.

We'd need Senate and House representatives that represent the bulk of citizens in the US and not those catering to the ultra wealthy's whims.

For that, people would have to vote out a lot of existing politicians, pick fresh faces, and cycle them out regularly enough to make it difficult for a few private interests to buy them out. For some states there are incentives to keep the status quo because it helps them (Kentucky and Mitch McConnell in recent news come to mind), so those cases would be difficult to convince to dump out their representative because they provide just enough support to their states to appease residents.

Overall, there just doesn't seem to be momentum of voters to achieve this and every attempt I've seen has failed. Some of this is likely due to the orchestration/organization problem: it's a lot easier for a few thousand billionaires to converge on shared ideas than hundreds of millions of non-billionaries.

Instead, people shake their heads and go with the flow while complaining about the state of affairs and ongoing trends that hurt their interests and growth. The end result is the continued snowball of wealth inequality we see. I often wonder if we've passed a critical point of recovery within our governmental system to fix this issue but I certainly hope not.

Cycling the legislators doesn't help at all - it's easy to make a farm team of lackies, already "bought" before they're even elected. They can even be picked according to ideology, so you don't have to pay them a dime.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/re-engineering-politician...

I don't know the solution to this problem, but it's not legislative turnover!

Agreed. There is this call for term limits but think it would have the opposite effect of what people want. If politics is not a long term career then politicians need to be either independently wealthy or keep a foot in the industry they worked in. That way it's pretty much guaranteed that they will be beholden to that industry and aren't independent.

Mitch McConnell should just start putting corporate logo patches on his suits.

I don't disagree but that should be extended to each and every member of Congress.

We’re a majority-homeowner country. Property rights are immensely popular.

I'm thinking the politicians from anyplace that would be a problem are strongly disincentivized from making any such law. If a guy owns a big enough tract, then that's potential for a huge roads project to go around that tract. Roads projects mean money and jobs, lots of the former and lots, and lots of the latter. Jobs tends to mean votes. Especially in rural areas.

If anyone can just go through the land anyway, all of a sudden there is no need for any projects. At least no big one.

But maybe I'm just being cynical.

I think you are overthinking this way too much. A right to roam would have no impact on road building or other public projects.

Well, in Scotland you only have the right to walk or cycle across other people's property - and with a number of restrictions (no damaging crops, no access to immediate vicinity or houses etc.).

When I was in Scotland two years this was a breath of fresh air and “freedom”. In the US there are lots of areas where it’s really hard to hike because people close off their land completely. Or they mark the land as private and now you have to worry about getting shot or somethings.

Ah, I see. Yeah, that makes more sense. So they would still need a road. Also, you can't go up to someones house and walk around. Etc.

Of all the ways that wealth can be redistributed, land reform is arguably one of the most socially disruptive. I hope we don't get to this point.