Along with your dislike of tract housing in suburbs, could you please give some concrete examples of what you don't like? The consumerism mindset of people in this country, in addition to the capitalistic style of economy. Capitalism doesn't always have to equal democracy/republic. The "Me first" mentality of most Americans, and the attitude that ones success should be measured on material things. On that note, the material worship of many Americans. The whole attitude of individual being more important than the community. The degree to which many Americans are so wasteful. The idea of demonizing an opponent because they don't agree with you (though this can be considered more universal than unique to the US) The lack of appreciation for the environment as compared with the perceived value of one's "right" to do what they want with their land. The general lack of self-control and moderation among Americans (though this is also seen around the world, IMHO it is really bad here)
You use a lot of sweeping generalizations. How do you know so well what "most Americans"/"many Americans" think or do? Communities are made up of individuals, so both have to be taken into account and cared for. Both are important, not one over the other.
Demonizing an opponent is a human trait and certainly not limited to the US by a long chalk.
I would also like to suggest to you that it is the matter of caring for the environment that is
what some people want to do with their own land as well as with the public lands. When landowners don't want garbage and junk dumped there, when they don't want fires set or things torn up, it can be for the land's sake
That's another aspect: "purchased" as in the owner willingly sells or as Eminent Domain where land is taken, with some recompense but without the owner's consent? Either way, but preferably willingly selling land. Eminent Domain should be even beyond a last resort. Example: A farmer unwilling to sell his land to developers, ED shouldn't EVER be used... Or... A person living across the country still owns an abandoned, run down home in the inner city that is used by criminals now, ED should def. be used if the person can't be reached or won't sell it. ED should only be an issue if there is obvious harm to the community through criminal activity.
But in the proposal that more national parks and lands be set up, would you permit those in the designated area who do not want to sell to remain and to have free access to the "outside world" if they are surrounded?
That isn't the only reason that walls/fences were built Sometimes they keep things in that shouldn't be allowed to wander off.What shouldn't be allowed to wander off? Animals? Animals shouldn't be pinned in like they are now... Building up fences harms the natural animals as well as the domesticated. (However guard dogs, and things like that obviously ought to be chained, but I'm speaking about farm animals like Cattle, Horses, etc..)
"Shouldn't"? Have you ever spent any time on a farm or ranch? Do you know that some animals, like sheep for instance, will wander and can come to harm without some kind of protection? Not just to keep them off of the roads and highways, but from falling down coulees or into rivers. Sometimes edges give way and an animal or a person can fall to their injury or death. "Pinned in"? How are open range or hundreds of acres of pasture/grazing land "pinned in"? Out in Montana, the "fences" are not 10 foot high wood or brick walls. Most are posts with log/wood/wire. (that's not counting the snow-fences that keep blowing snow off of highways either). Elk, deer, wolves and other creatures can get over/under/around it. Wild birds aren't hemmed in at all.
I also think you draw an incorrect dichotomy between "natural" and domesticated animals. There's nothing "unnatural" about cattle or horses. Horses are also working animals, partners with the rancher or farmer, like some dogs; they can be vital in caring for the ranch. It's not in the interests of a rancher or farmer to mistreat his stock. And speaking of farmers, crops need to be protected from getting eaten or driven over or taken among other things. There is nothing inherently "evil" or wrong about fences. It depends on the use and some of them are for good reasons.
Also, I wasn't just talking about animals. Small children, kids with disabilities, people with dementia among other examples might need to be given some protection that a fence can provide both to keep them from getting out in the street or other forms of harm (cliffs, water, cold etc) and to keep things that could hurt them away. Our youngest has mild Down Syndrome. For a while, one neighbor had a large strong dog in the yard and a driveway that ran along the side that would have people in trucks or cars sometimes driving down to the back. The children like to play in the yard and there is supervision. But as he got older, he got faster and he likes dogs and trucks and the temptation to go next door would happen at times. We put up a nice white post and board fence to at least slow him down. The fence did not take the place of having supervision. It is an additional aid to keep him safe and well.
Perhaps you do not have any sense of community or your experience of society is self-centered, but that is not the case every where. Could it be that you are projecting your views on a larger screen?I'm sorry, but the whole suburban and sprawl oriented lifestyle is not community. It's individualistic and self-centered. Even poverty stricken inner-city neighborhoods have more community than suburban sprawl neighborhoods do.
How many poverty stricken inner-city neighborhoods have you personally lived in for some time? How do you know this. Your description does not describe our neighborhood, but then maybe we don't fit your ideas. Our house and the others here were build nearly 50 years ago. It's not a vast "sprawl" but a quiet set of three streets. The elementary age children gather at the end of our street in the morning with 2 or 3 adults or more and walk to the local school. They play together. Our yard backs on the playing field and we have a path and gate that neighbors use to get to this end of the short street coming back from the local grocery store or other places in the little shopping rows on the larger road that runs through. People help their neighbors when they're sick or need a ride and have all the time we've lived here (16 1/2 years) and long before from what the older inhabitants say, some of whom have lived here since the houses were built. When a daughter of one family graduated from college they had a party to which we and the other neighbors were invited. Not for gifts but to celebrate her accomplishment. When there were deaths, there was sympathy and people took food to the bereaved. At Christmas people exchange cookies or sweets, even the ones who aren't Christian.
So your definition and description of "suburbs" doesn't fit here. It doesn't fit the small towns on the high plains or in the mountains or other places that people live in this planet.
Some places can be as you describe them, but how have you gained your data to form your opinion, please? These are still real Human Beings and real lives in many conditions and situations and how much have you traveled and experienced? Did you grown up in a "suburban sprawl"? It may be that that is what you know, but is not the only way, nor possibly the majority way. There are other ways people live, even in the US. I've lived in big cities, small cities, old neighborhoods with some of them pre-urban renewal 'student slums', towns and now a kind of older "suburb" in that we're between two large cities. And I still know that there are lots of other ways that people live.
Also, what does "true freedom" mean to you? To others it might mean "I can do what I like without anyone telling me what to do or stop me." (sounds a bit like my children sometimes ) and that way lies danger in seeing only their desires as having any merit while those of other humans do not matter."True freedom" is a priviledge.
And are not "privileges" things that are granted to a person at the discretion or decision of another? Who will have that power, one wonders.
True "freedom" comes from being able to make your choices under a controlled situation.
What I mean by this is: Man HAS to be governed and controlled, there cannot be a lack of any law and order or government. However, true freedom lays in man's ability to choose how he wants to be governed (that is, government/economical types).
There are those who would say that any control takes away true freedom. And if human's have a voice, a real voice and choice in their government, then there is a component of democracy there already.
What "government styles" are you thinking of, please? I would seriously like to know what you mean and what ones you do think are good as well as why do you think Anarchy is bad? There are some people who are political anarchists, after all.My last answer leads me to this question... "Government styles" are many, Democracy, Republic, Communism, Monarchy, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Authoritarianism, Aristocracy, Autocracy, Tribalism, etc... and all their subtypes.
Another part of "true freedom" would be a person's right to choose their economy and what their commerce ought to be, like Socialism, Capitalism, etc... and all their subtypes.
From those levels, a people can choose, or their leaders can choose any other rights/priviledges and laws, etc...
And who will guard the guardians? Have you had any political science classes about how governments and ruling systems evolve or happen? It's not like ordinary people trying to have enough to eat and a roof for their families decide to be under an oligarchy for a while and then decide they'll try something else. In History such changes have happened due to stresses and conflict and conquest much of the time because we are of "the race of Men who above all desire power." The common people don't get much of a voice.