7 ms·

I would start with the question of why is it that people need visas. We live on the same earth. We should be allowed to travel wherever we want. It's ridiculous

by snitko 13y ago

I would start with the question of why is it that people need visas. We live on the same earth. We should be allowed to travel wherever we want. It's ridiculous.

functional_test 13y ago
Since you're being downvoted, but no one has commented to explain why (it's not just that your opinion is unpopular), I feel like I should put in my thoughts. I once felt the way you do, but upon reflection I don't any longer, so I thought I should share why. While you may believe that current surveillance has gone too far, advocating for no security is much too far the other direction. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Without any visas or border control, you have no way to prevent ingress and egress of known criminals, people carrying infectious diseases, or any of myriad other actually real threats. Just because people exaggerate threats like terrorism does not mean there is nothing to defend against. It is also important to prevent people who have no means of sustenance from moving into your country and becoming a burden. In no way am I implying that exceptions should not be granted for asylum or other exceptional circumstances. However, being in a country is a bit like being in a club -- everyone pays dues (taxes) and there are perks too. Why should club members want to give everyone the perks while they have all the responsibilities? Your thought that people should try to be closer to one another is admirable, but I think if you reflect on it further, you'll agree that some forms of restriction are necessary.
- snitko 13y ago
  The problem is not that there are restrictions, but who imposes them and for what reason. Governments, for example, mostly don't want people to come and work illegally. Well, why do you think that is? It's because they would compete with the local labour force who would suffer in this case. Often forgotten is the fact that currently it's consumers who suffer from higher prices - this fact doesn't get nearly as much attention. Diseases and criminal activity is just a small fraction of all immigration issues. Government doesn't care about it as much. I'd be absolutely fine with them if those were the only restrictions.
- outworlder 13y ago
  And yet, if everyone were in the same "club", these sorts of restrictions would be unnecessary. As for infectious diseases, they should be controlled locally, not on some arbitrarily defined border.
rayiner 13y ago
Because securing and defending territory, with its associated resources and productive capacity, is one of the most fundamental activities of socially-organized mammals.
- snitko 13y ago
  Let the mammals organize voluntarily. In my country, for example, some people are against central asian immigrants. That's fine. I propose they don't do any business with them and don't allow them on their private property. I, on the other hand, am completely fine with them, so I do business with them. I never signed a single document which says that government is allowed to make such decisions on my behalf.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You can't continue to reside in territory controlled and defended by a sovereign people and then claim you signed no document consenting to abide by their rules. Your mere presence in their territory subjects you to their jurisdiction. That is in fact the whole purpose of securing and controlling territory--to establish dominion over that territory and those within.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Who are they? How are they different from me? Am I not a part of them? And if 60% of people say it's okay to kill the rest of the 40%, should the 40% submit?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        In a democratic society, "they" are the majority. You are a part of them, but you get your one vote and no more. They can bind you without your explicit consent, because at the end of the day they are the ones who protect you from the dangers of other nations, anarchy, etc.
        13y ago
perlpimp 13y ago
I would go on tangent and fantasize about quasi-corporate state described in SnowCrash. Towards which we are moving, slowly. :)
atlanticus 13y ago
The fact that my friends and I can't show up at your house unexpected and stay indefinitely must seem ridiculous to you as well.
- dtsygankov 13y ago
  When I'm not letting _your_ friends in _my_ house, this is OK, since my house is my property. When _my_ friends cannot visit me in _my_ house, however, because they are lacking a piece of paper called visa, the world is really messed up.
  - atlanticus 13y ago
    Your house is yours because of an agreement with the country you live in.
    - snitko 13y ago
      Let's say I built a house on a land that belongs to no country. Now, whose house is it? It's mine as long as I can protect it. So property rights are defined not by some piece of paper, but rather by the ability to enforce them. Government is just one way to enforce property rights, I'd argue a rather inefficient one, since it usually can only deal with consequences of an intrusion (and not prevent it). In an absence of government, I could hire a private protection agency to enforce my property rights. And since many other people would be interested in doing the same, there will be a demand and prices would be very affordable. So don't you dare say that I have my house because of the government.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Land you can defend is "territory." Land other people will defend on your behalf is "property." The key distinction between the two is that nerds like us on Hacker News can't defend territory. Without ganging up together to ensure collective defense, we're at the mercy of the physically strong. Without society, nerds have nothing to trade for security. That's why before the existence of democratic government, the western world was dominated by military men (feudal barons), not businessmen or intellectual men.
tptacek 13y ago
Time for another exciting round of "Let's Relitigate Civilization!"
- mkr-hn 13y ago
  With guest host Judith Sheindlin.

by snitko 13y ago

I would start with the question of why is it that people need visas. We live on the same earth. We should be allowed to travel wherever we want. It's ridiculous.

functional_test 13y ago

Since you're being downvoted, but no one has commented to explain why (it's not just that your opinion is unpopular), I feel like I should put in my thoughts. I once felt the way you do, but upon reflection I don't any longer, so I thought I should share why. While you may believe that current surveillance has gone too far, advocating for no security is much too far the other direction. As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Without any visas or border control, you have no way to prevent ingress and egress of known criminals, people carrying infectious diseases, or any of myriad other actually real threats. Just because people exaggerate threats like terrorism does not mean there is nothing to defend against. It is also important to prevent people who have no means of sustenance from moving into your country and becoming a burden. In no way am I implying that exceptions should not be granted for asylum or other exceptional circumstances. However, being in a country is a bit like being in a club -- everyone pays dues (taxes) and there are perks too. Why should club members want to give everyone the perks while they have all the responsibilities? Your thought that people should try to be closer to one another is admirable, but I think if you reflect on it further, you'll agree that some forms of restriction are necessary.

snitko 13y ago
The problem is not that there are restrictions, but who imposes them and for what reason. Governments, for example, mostly don't want people to come and work illegally. Well, why do you think that is? It's because they would compete with the local labour force who would suffer in this case. Often forgotten is the fact that currently it's consumers who suffer from higher prices - this fact doesn't get nearly as much attention. Diseases and criminal activity is just a small fraction of all immigration issues. Government doesn't care about it as much. I'd be absolutely fine with them if those were the only restrictions.
outworlder 13y ago
And yet, if everyone were in the same "club", these sorts of restrictions would be unnecessary. As for infectious diseases, they should be controlled locally, not on some arbitrarily defined border.

rayiner 13y ago

Because securing and defending territory, with its associated resources and productive capacity, is one of the most fundamental activities of socially-organized mammals.

snitko 13y ago
Let the mammals organize voluntarily. In my country, for example, some people are against central asian immigrants. That's fine. I propose they don't do any business with them and don't allow them on their private property. I, on the other hand, am completely fine with them, so I do business with them. I never signed a single document which says that government is allowed to make such decisions on my behalf.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You can't continue to reside in territory controlled and defended by a sovereign people and then claim you signed no document consenting to abide by their rules. Your mere presence in their territory subjects you to their jurisdiction. That is in fact the whole purpose of securing and controlling territory--to establish dominion over that territory and those within.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Who are they? How are they different from me? Am I not a part of them? And if 60% of people say it's okay to kill the rest of the 40%, should the 40% submit?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      In a democratic society, "they" are the majority. You are a part of them, but you get your one vote and no more. They can bind you without your explicit consent, because at the end of the day they are the ones who protect you from the dangers of other nations, anarchy, etc.
      - 13y ago

perlpimp 13y ago

I would go on tangent and fantasize about quasi-corporate state described in SnowCrash. Towards which we are moving, slowly. :)

atlanticus 13y ago

The fact that my friends and I can't show up at your house unexpected and stay indefinitely must seem ridiculous to you as well.

dtsygankov 13y ago
When I'm not letting _your_ friends in _my_ house, this is OK, since my house is my property. When _my_ friends cannot visit me in _my_ house, however, because they are lacking a piece of paper called visa, the world is really messed up.
- atlanticus 13y ago
  Your house is yours because of an agreement with the country you live in.
  - snitko 13y ago
    Let's say I built a house on a land that belongs to no country. Now, whose house is it? It's mine as long as I can protect it. So property rights are defined not by some piece of paper, but rather by the ability to enforce them. Government is just one way to enforce property rights, I'd argue a rather inefficient one, since it usually can only deal with consequences of an intrusion (and not prevent it). In an absence of government, I could hire a private protection agency to enforce my property rights. And since many other people would be interested in doing the same, there will be a demand and prices would be very affordable. So don't you dare say that I have my house because of the government.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Land you can defend is "territory." Land other people will defend on your behalf is "property." The key distinction between the two is that nerds like us on Hacker News can't defend territory. Without ganging up together to ensure collective defense, we're at the mercy of the physically strong. Without society, nerds have nothing to trade for security. That's why before the existence of democratic government, the western world was dominated by military men (feudal barons), not businessmen or intellectual men.

tptacek 13y ago

Time for another exciting round of "Let's Relitigate Civilization!"

mkr-hn 13y ago
With guest host Judith Sheindlin.