4 ms·

How do you arrive at "free circulation" being a "basic human right." I've never heard that. Seems pretty common to not necessarily be allowed to go anywhere y

How do you arrive at "free circulation" being a "basic human right." I've never heard that. Seems pretty common to not necessarily be allowed to go anywhere you please just because you want to. Maybe it is an extreme example, but I know I don't want people freely circulating inside my house.

Spivak 4y ago
Because it literally is a right within the EU. The US calls it the right of free movement which is a derived right from the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. If you think this wasn't a right have y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want? As for the justification for why it's a basic human right https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... > Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel > It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
- pixl97 4y ago
  What are the limits to this right? Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. Obviously each individual doing their own thing isn't a problem, but when a lot of people do that thing it becomes a problem. We all love the idea of freedom, but it always requires responsibility. When individuals do not take this responsibility then issues like the tragedy of the commons manifest.
  - petre 4y ago
    So put a fee on the bridge or a queuing system. People are still 'free' to move on the bridge. In fact bridge taxes and highway taxes are quite common.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. We generally solve these purely hypothetical problems that never actually occur by ignoring them.
    - chucky123 4y ago
      Love it!
    - onethought 4y ago
      Hypothetical you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London
      - lmm 4y ago
        That bridge wasn't overwhelmed by an unexpected large number of people. It had a design flaw, which was fixed.
        onethought 4y ago
        After they limited the number of people that could cross at any given time, and then closed the bridge 2 days later. Basically the exact scenario described above as "hypothetical". It was overwhelmed... yes it was a design flaw. That's the point.
    - eCa 4y ago
      I have a pedestrian bridge near me with a signposted 30 person limit.
  - sharikous 4y ago
    So the court would compel the state to build a stronger bridge
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  > y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want? I think that's called "having a warrant out for your arrest" and it's always mystified me that each state keeps their own list of personas non grata
bigDinosaur 4y ago
Your house is private property while cities are not (well, unless the government privatised all the public spaces and roads etc.)

Spivak 4y ago

Because it literally is a right within the EU. The US calls it the right of free movement which is a derived right from the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution. If you think this wasn't a right have y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want? As for the justification for why it's a basic human right https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... > Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel > It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

pixl97 4y ago
What are the limits to this right? Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. Obviously each individual doing their own thing isn't a problem, but when a lot of people do that thing it becomes a problem. We all love the idea of freedom, but it always requires responsibility. When individuals do not take this responsibility then issues like the tragedy of the commons manifest.
- petre 4y ago
  So put a fee on the bridge or a queuing system. People are still 'free' to move on the bridge. In fact bridge taxes and highway taxes are quite common.
- lmm 4y ago
  > Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. We generally solve these purely hypothetical problems that never actually occur by ignoring them.
  - chucky123 4y ago
    Love it!
  - onethought 4y ago
    Hypothetical you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London
    - lmm 4y ago
      That bridge wasn't overwhelmed by an unexpected large number of people. It had a design flaw, which was fixed.
      - onethought 4y ago
        After they limited the number of people that could cross at any given time, and then closed the bridge 2 days later. Basically the exact scenario described above as "hypothetical". It was overwhelmed... yes it was a design flaw. That's the point.
  - eCa 4y ago
    I have a pedestrian bridge near me with a signposted 30 person limit.
- sharikous 4y ago
  So the court would compel the state to build a stronger bridge
jazzyjackson 4y ago
> y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want? I think that's called "having a warrant out for your arrest" and it's always mystified me that each state keeps their own list of personas non grata

bigDinosaur 4y ago

Your house is private property while cities are not (well, unless the government privatised all the public spaces and roads etc.)