3 ms·
> Requiring passports is not an impingement on anyone’s freedom; it is the exercise of a country’s freedom to control who trespasses within its borders. This s
by uxp100 8y ago
> Requiring passports is not an impingement on anyone’s freedom; it is the exercise of a country’s freedom to control who trespasses within its borders.
This seems like a narrow definition of freedom, something like, freedom is whatever rights are granted by the nations I like. I would think it is possible for something to be an impingement on one person's freedom, while being the exercise of another's.
- psyc 8y agoI agree that it’s an over-opinionated definition. I wouldn’t go so far as calling it doublespeak, but it’s like 1.5x speak.
- krisdol 8y agoI would. It's freedom in the sense of "freedom to deny others' freedom". That's pretty directly analogous to 1984's "freedom is slavery".
- rayiner 8y agoThat’s like saying that property rights are the “freedom to deny others’ freedom.” Banding together and controlling territory is one of the most basic functions of human societies. There is no “right” to go onto territory another group has developed, cultivated, and controls.
- stcredzero 8y agoThis seems like a narrow definition of freedom, something like, freedom is whatever rights are granted by the nations I like. Under the current framework of International Law, that is what it is. Sovereignty basically comes down to "bigger army diplomacy," as CGP Grey puts it. Even in the US. It's the sovereign US which uses its power to assert rights on behalf of its citizens. Perhaps this could change. Perhaps we could establish individual human rights as the foundation of law on future colony planets. I'm not sure that game theory and human nature would allow it, however.