Preferences

Not even a linkedin? Bluesky,A google maps thingy? Not even an FSF subscription and GNU social account?

You have the freedom to be off the grid, but the states have the freedom to reject your entry.


creata
I'm tired of hearing "you have the freedom to [x]", when it's always accompanied by "but if you do exercise that freedom, you will be treated as a second-class citizen".
Viliam1234
It's similar to the socialist: "we have freedom of speech, the only thing missing is freedom after you speak".
riedel
I think nobody is screaming here that this particular action is illegal, as I read the comments. However, there is many things governments can do, that can be considered (under different subjective considerations) unethical, following a hidden agenda or plainly stupid. My personal decision at the moment is that I do not travel to the US. Which means that at times our papers are not presented at US conferences because my PhD students don't get visa (even unrelated to the current ban). I think the US will survive this particular loss though.
That sounds terrible. Do you think the US can recover from this if these policies extend for the full 4-year presidential period?
The idea that countries have any right to restrict the movements of non-criminals is not settled.

If I own land, I should be able to invite anyone, anywhere to come stand on it. This idea that you have no right to freedom of movement and travel on Earth is a ridiculous one.

Passports as a concept are only about a hundred years old. Prior to that if you wanted to go somewhere, you just went.

TZubiri OP
>If I own land, I should be able to invite anyone, anywhere to come stand on it

Naturally there's conflicts between different rights, and yours end where other's begin.

In this case one should not be able to jeopardize the safety or well being of their neighbours by inviting

>Passports as a concept are only about a hundred years old. Prior to that if you wanted to go somewhere, you just went.

We did have castles for quite some centuries

sneak
You seem to think that paperwork with a country’s name on it can tell you whether or not inviting that person to your land jeopardizes the safety or well being of your neighbors.

You are mistaken.

This idea that you are somehow safer next to citizens of your own country and less safe next to citizens of a different country is simply incorrect is citizenship is the discriminator you are using.

Based on your comments in this thread, you seem to have a conclusion to which you are attached, and then work backwards from there. This comment of yours really lays that bare in its ridiculousness.

TZubiri OP
"You seem to think that paperwork with a country’s name on it"

Is that what you call your country's constitution?

It's the land of your country first, without a country and without a (1T/yr) army, you might have the right to land, but not its exercise. The right to your land is guaranteed by your constitution, and in the same breath it defines that they are sovereign to all of the land in the States. It's not your land first and then the state's sovereign, but the other way around.

Since we are on the subject of the constitution,

"“The Congress shall have Power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” “To provide for the common Defence…”

So I wasn't too far off with the argument of your neighbours having a say on who you invite over to your land. It seems you are the one with the contrarian viewpoint.

sneak
I’m not sure if you are intentionally moving the goalposts, but I was referring to a passport.

Citizenship or lack thereof doesn’t tell you whether or not it is a risk to have someone participate in your society. People who believe it can serve as a proxy for this decision are mistaken.

Filligree
The base concept is significantly older. Even today, if you’re rich enough you can go anywhere; but serfs did not just leave.

Somehow, most people now treat “belonging to the land” as a positive concept.

intended
Strawman.

No one is saying states don’t have the right.

States can go even further. They can decide to exit economic unions, trade agreements, etc. You have sovereignty.

Everyone knows you have freedom to play cards as you see fit. Everyone who understands how the game is played, will also make moves accordingly.

There’s nothing to be defensive about.

TZubiri OP
Oh I might have misspoken, what I meant by "the states" was "The United States" rather than "the individual states". I think capitalizing it as "The States" or even "the States" should be sufficient to distinguish it correctly in the future.

On another topic, I think neither individuals nor the states, have sovereignity over the land, only The State has. But I may be mistaken.

I am actually an FSF associate member. What is your point, to alienate other FSF supporters or something?
TZubiri OP
No, I just meant that that would qualify as a social media account or as an alternative.

This item has no comments currently.