Right to Roam

*moves*

As long as the land owner can still eject/ban people from the airspace, I kinda like the idea. I don't think it should be a RIGHT, roaming. If you take away the land owner's ability to keep people out, those people and their vehicles could do things like rain particles down, wear megaprims, play music, and park alt accounts in free advertising spots...

Ban line height is 70 meters if the av is flying or is attached to the flying object.

Object movement and script operations with no av is at least 768 meters if the land owner has the Object Entry and Run Scripts unchecked.

I say NO. Think about it no person space. Stupid people laying objects on people land etc. Its bad enough as it is.

I do hope Elmore Philbin hasn't left the discussion, because his Objectivist (in the Randian sense) contributions to this discussion actually merit more consideration than Conan Godwin gives them credit. Property rights, and the ability to use your possessions as you see fit are the most elementary and most important human rights, and Mr. Godwin is definitely looking to deprive some people of their property without compensation. To an Objectivist this is tantamount to calling for enslavement. And they're right.

HOWEVER, Mr. Philbin neglects a very basic consideration ... the land isn't truly his to start with. It's the property of Linden Lands, and we get broad discretionary privileges for the use of that land in exchange for a monthly fee. To that end, if the Lindens got it into their Collectivist heads to enact Mr. Godwin's proposal, they are within their rights as the ultimate owners of all property within Second Life to do so, and the rest of us are left with the Randian choice of continuing to support the looters or going on strike ... walking away from Second Life to pursue productive endeavors elsewhere, untouched by the grabbing, grimy paws of socialist enslavement.

H-O-W-E-V-E-R, I believe there is another solution to this problem that grants Mr. Godwin his ability to roam in his plane, balloon, or propeller cap, while also satisfying the rights that Mr. Philbin (and I, for that matter) expects, even if it truly isn't our property to start with.

==============

A MODEST PROPOSAL
The creation of an Air and Water Authority within Second Life; a private, for-profit corporation that provides a service benefiting both travelers and land owners. The Authority provides a "beacon" object to land owners who wish to participate. When active, and placed on their land, travelers may fly at an Authority-specified altitude over that parcel, or across its open water-ways with an "open premises" model.

Travelers purchase a license to fly and/or boat across all Authority-sanctioned land. This license has a minor cost (for a free notecard explaining rules of the air and see and to enter into an Authority database, and a "transponder" that tells the Authority which properties have been flown over), and a recurring cost. This cost might be $L1 for every 100 parcels flown over. Maybe more, maybe less, the economics must be considered carefully as a cost/benefit for both the travelers and land owners.

Each Authority-licensed property owner receives a portion of the proceeds derived from the transition in compensation for borrowing resources that have been paid for by the owner.

Authority-licensed property owners must follow certain stipulations, such as: No bans, a certain reserve of unused prim count, and whatever else would allow the free passage of travelers without incident. If a property owner does not follow these Authority regulations, then a report may be filed with the Authority in response to a crash or similar inconvenience. An Authority agent then reviews the property, makes an assessment of the situation, and warns the property owner about the situation. Perhaps the property-owner's beacon is de-listed from the Authority database until a small fine is paid (to compensate the agent for his/her/its time) and the offense corrected.

Authority-licensed travelers must also follow certain regulations, such as: no vehicles over a certain prim-count (equal to the reserve set for property owners), no abusive behavior (such as griefing or spying), and maintaining set altitude when flying.

Now, travelers may go wherever they want, as long as the property owners specifically opt-in to the system. Owners have a financial incentive to do so, especially if their property lies on a well-traveled route. Since the Authority makes a profit on the system, they can afford to pay certain land-owners more if they are reluctant to allow travelers, but own land in a desirable thoroughfare. In time, the Authority would be able to provide approved air and water passage ways, even publishing nautical and aeronautical maps.

There's no need to involve the Lindens in any of this. It could be implemented with modest effort right now. The early days would be a bit chaotic, but as the Authority grows, it would begin to bring order out of that chaos; providing a service to both land owners and travelers without the need for socialist intervention. It would also be in the Authority's interest not to become too tyrannical or expensive, since if it made too much of a profit, or pissed-off enough people, it would be just as modest an effort to create a whole new Authority to compete with it, thus allowing the free market to reign-in Authority abuses.

What do you think?

The problem with Elmore is that his objections are based on a matter of principle rather than a matter of practicallity. That basically sums up everything that is wrong with the world - his objections are based on a knee-jerk emotional reaction rather than on a logical objection to specific details of the proposal.

See new thread for a totally different proposal that I think may resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction. It's in resident answers.

I just dialled in a 54.497m z axis for an object I was building & missed the decimal point out in error.

Thank God for the 768m height limit mile