9 ms·
>Freedom of movement is a basic human right. I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
by sparkzilla 11y ago
>Freedom of movement is a basic human right.
I wish people would stop making up fake rights. Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property.
- javajosh 11y agoSince the article is about a political issue, he is referring to political borders, not private ones. E.g. he's talking about letting Mexicans come into the US, not into your home.
- sparkzilla 11y agoBut why stop there? Let's have no property rights and let the Mexicans stay in your bedroom.
- Dylan16807 11y agoBecause that's a completely unrelated concept.
- vetinari 11y agoHow's that? It's related, just different in scope.
- aianus 11y agoBecause the Mexicans would be working and paying rent or buying your property from you, not squatting in your bedroom for free.
- vetinari 11y agoThey would be living in my country, demand voting rights, then demand things that the original residents would never vote for, but will have to pay for anyway. Why should I agree to change (from my POV: destroy) the society where I live? Btw: I'm not US citizen. I'm European. You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders.
- pgeorgi 11y ago> You'll be hard pressed to find many people in Europe in current situation, who would agree with disbanding the borders. A significant part of the political arm (ie. those who aren't just helping because there are humans in need but have an agenda that transcends any concrete situation) of the "refugees welcome" movement start out from the "human right on free movement" that was mentioned here, and effectively want borders not to exist.
- vetinari 11y agoYes, I realize that. However, it is either political arm, as you wrote, or NGOs financed from abroad. Both are doing it for personal gain. But they are still minority, just very loud one and quite powerful one (not in the democratic sense, though). However, what they are doing is showing great example to the undecided, who are waking up.
- pluma 11y agoI'm European. I disagree with you. Stop generalizing.
- vetinari 11y agoHave you looked out of the window lately? Or is it too high from your ivory tower?
- dang 11y agoNo personal attacks on Hacker News, please.
- vetinari 11y agoSorry, it was not intended to be personal attack. Yes, the point, that someone may be minority in his opinion can be conveyed in a different way. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-immigration.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/186209/europeans-negative-toward-...)
- vetinari 11y agoStill the same thing. Group of people "owning" one jurisdiction/sovereign has right to decide, under what conditions they will allow or not allow people from other jurisdictions/sovereigns enter or not. Otherwise, you can move people as you wish and change outcome of any election or referendum by moving the "right" people. Democracy is dead then. I agree with original poster, freedom to ignore borders is a fake, purposeful invented "human right".
- notahacker 11y agoNational borders - useful as they might be - are the artificial, invented human construct here.
- quanticle 11y agoPolitical borders are an extension of private borders. If the citizens of Metropolis get together and decide that the citizens of Gotham are no longer welcome within their city limits, is that a private border they're defending, or a public one? If it's a public border, then what distinguishes the collective decision of all citizens of Metropolis from an individual decision by a single citizen of Metropolis? If it's a private border, then what distinguishes the border of Metropolis from the border of the United States of America?
- duncanawoods 11y agoWell there are no "real" rights. The pragmatic understanding is that rights are labels that groups agree to use to indicate that something is "very important, the exceptions must be spectacularly well justified". You don't have to agree with the label. For your private property example, consider UK freedom to roam and statutory right of access laws. It is sometimes called "right to roam". UN and EU have freedom of movement rights, but they do not grant crossing borders other than your own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement
- dclowd9901 11y agoYour right to your property ends at your death. None of us are entitled to anything.
- idlewords 11y agoSo you believe property is a basic human right.
- eevilspock 11y agoThe problem is that too many libertarians take the precept that one's body is sacrosanct and extrapolate it to things beyond the body. I agree that one's body belongs to oneself and no one else, that it must not be violated by any one or any group, even in the name of a greater good. And I can agree that the fruits of one's labor cannot also be coerced or taken away, as long as "fruits of one's labor" is very strictly and narrowly defined. I agree that everyone has the "right" to be a selfish jerk. But this does not extend much beyond your body. Certainly not to land. Land is the fruit of no one's labor. Rather, we are the fruits of it.
- Retra 11y ago"I agree that one's body belongs to oneself and no one else, that it must not be violated by any one or any group, even in the name of a greater good." Your personal autonomy is contingent upon your intent to use that autonomy to promote the common good. Your society, in the name of the greater good, can (and will) take your body from you if you don't use it to employ a minimum amount of consideration for others. And they have every right to. There are no 'innate' rights. They all require justification, even when that justification is both vague and obvious in our current culture.
- eevilspock 11y agoI'm a socialist, but I could never agree with what you just said. You've basically said that society can, for example, force you to work on a farm if others are starving, even if you yourself are content to starve. That's ridiculous.
- Retra 11y agoI've basically described the criminal justice system in every country on the planet.
- mseebach 11y agoBut if I invite you onto my property, your freedom of movement includes your right to accept my invitation. Which you can't do if there's a noncooperative national border between you and my property.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- paulsutter 11y agoProperty ownership is pretty much just an agreement among people, it's not a natural right. In fact, you can discover the real owner of your property if you stop paying property taxes, or when a local government decides they want a road there.
- sparkzilla 11y agoI agree. I didn't say property ownership was a natural right. I think free movement is also pretty much an agreement between people.
- arethuza 11y ago"Your freedom to move stops at someone else's property." I walk and cycle over other people's land all the time - in fact I have a legal right to do that (with some pretty sensible restrictions). I can't remember ever meeting anyone who had a problem with me doing this - in fact a lot of farmers and gamekeepers seem quite happy to have you there if it's clear you are being sensible.
- ionised 11y agoHow is property not a fake right by that same logic?