4 ms·

Freedom of movement is a civil liberty, but maybe not where you live.

• woodruffw 3y ago
  This is a profound misunderstanding of civil liberties. Being inconvenienced by another person doesn't violate anything. If the government were to install roadblocks and check your identity card before letting you leave your town, that would violate your freedom of movement. If a local private militia did the same thing, it would be as well. But being slightly delayed by a bunch of environmentalists blocking a specific form of transit doesn't meaningfully violate anything. The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties.
  • varjag 3y ago
    This is a useless distinction when the distances dictate pretty much this only mode of transportation: nobody's going to march 40km on foot unless their lives depend on it. The counterstatement here would be "the state has the right to forcefully remove anybody who slightly inconveniences me"; it should be obvious why this would be a gross violation of civil liberties. There is a whole slew of laws and regulations dealing with people who inconvenience others on purpose.
    • munk-a 3y ago
      > nobody's going to march 40km on foot unless their lives depend on it. Freedom of movement specifically exists for when "your lives depend on it" - it is a vital right to preserve and the freedom to make that 40 km walk has saved countless lives over the centuries.