> I can certainly think of several reasons why city border can and should be less restrictive than country borders, but I would first turn the question back to you, I since your question involves unstated assumptions: why should it apply between cities?
For the same reason it should apply between countries - whatever those are. It should be obvious that I don't think there are good reasons. You've got unstated assumptions about countries.
Your comment contains a lot of non-arguments: "think about it if you're serious", "think economics, "[what you're saying] is almost certainly not the right answer", "practical realities", "huge teams of smart people" etc.
You are on a soapbox challenging the status quo of every country on earth and I’m not, so you automatically have the higher burden of argument. I’m not defending the status quo, I only jumped in to help people who were making obviously incorrect and wildly negative assumptions about the reasons for border policies.
There are lots of reasons why the border policies between cities and countries might/can/should be very different, including but not limited to countries having a federal government or something analogous, and countries specifically wanting the free flow of citizens and their money within the country. Countries generally want the flow of citizens and money from other countries too, but they want control over what gets in the country. It seems fairly obvious to me that that strict city border policies everywhere serves little purpose and would be obnoxious and limiting for the people and the economy of that country, and that it would require a ton of enforcement resources that small cities don’t even have.
Here’s an analogy. Lots of companies have VPNs to get access to the company network. You don’t have a separate VPN for every team, or every building, or every computer. A few secret labs might have their own security, but by and large once you enter the company’s network, you have access to all the company resources. The VPN is like the country border. It’s a small hurdle for the employees of that company, but if there were hierarchical VPNs for everything everywhere in the company it would interfere with people’s ability to work and do very little to increase security; it would be net downside.
Again, it does not matter what my argument is. If you want to know the reasons why all countries in the world have border policies and why the country border policies are usually more strict than cities, the reasons have been written down, debated for hundreds of years, they exist and you are free to go read them if you’re actually curious (which you should be if you think it should change). They aren’t on Hacker News though, and no amount of opining on Hacker News is going to change the world’s border policies.
Hehehe. Smh. It’s also what is said to people who think the earth is flat. Some people just have beliefs that are ignorant of the things they can’t see. It seems like you just did compare borders to slavery, to complement your bogus comparison between borders and racism.
You can keep trying to poke some sort of specious logical hole in my arguments as long as you want, and it still won’t demonstrate anything, since I’m not arguing for borders and you’re not demonstrating any understanding of my points here. You seem unable to articulate any specific reasons, or even a specific goal. I’m not even sure what you’re proposing or arguing against. What do you want here? HN points? An actual discussion? Gain some realistic and practical understand why border policies exist? What?
For the same reason it should apply between countries - whatever those are. It should be obvious that I don't think there are good reasons. You've got unstated assumptions about countries.
Your comment contains a lot of non-arguments: "think about it if you're serious", "think economics, "[what you're saying] is almost certainly not the right answer", "practical realities", "huge teams of smart people" etc.