Uh, what exactly is shocking about this? The government has the right to know the precise identity of each and every person that's crossing its borders. It's also reasonably entitled to know the identify of each person flying into its sovereign airspace. How do you think they enforce visas and customs?
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.
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.
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.
Because securing and defending territory, with its associated resources and productive capacity, is one of the most fundamental activities of socially-organized mammals.
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.
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.
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?
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.
So if this 60% majority decides to kill the 40% minority, would you still think it's okay to do so? If not, then how about 70%/30%? Or 90%/10%? Where are the lines for which actions and who decides on them?
It's unfortunate that you're being downvoted. Your statements in this thread are ethically rational.
Cheers to a free mind such as yourself who won't be lured into circular reasoning by the happenstance of being born subject to arbitrary policy, and to a free mind who recognizes that borders are inhumane comparatively, in a natural sense, irrespective of the policies of other groups that claim territory and dictate the travels of others.
Land grab has been a 'bumpy road' over the course of millennia, to say the least, yet mob rule within a framework of a [rule of law] does not make the effects of policy more justified ethically. Historically and presently, the lines are drawn under a simple premise: "might makes right." I believe it's eventually possible to change that mindset. It would take an entire "nation" to effectively lead by example, under the ironic creed of Lady Liberty. That's clearly a daunting prospect any time soon, at least for large nations. However, nurturing more people to have freer, conscientious minds who can extrapolate ethics from [law/might] are the important part of a path to getting there.
From whence do these universal "ethics" arise? Do the descend from some supernatural deity? Are they a natural phenomenon, like gravity? Can you set up an experiment to detect their existence?
There is nothing "free" about a mind that believes and children's fairy tales like universal "ethics."
The majority of whom? Do you think the majority of the world would vote that they need a visa to travel to, say, the US?
Also, there's no need to protect me from anarchy, since the exact meaning of the word "anarchy" is "no rulers". I'd rather be protected from _rulers, than from lack of rulers.
The majority of the people controlling a territory, obviously. Control of the territory and the power to legislate rules within it are the two sides of the same coin. The rest of the world doesn't get a vote because they're on the outside, not the inside.
Re: anarchy, it's a cute philosophy for sheltered westerners who grew up with the blessings of good government. Ask anyone in rural Pakistan, where government power is almost nil and warlords dominate, what they think of anarchy.
Let's separate "the way it is" from "the way it should be".
I agree that the majority of the people controlling a territory get to set the rules they wish to set - that's "the way it is". A warlord gets to set the rules within the territory he's controlling. Putin gets to set the rules in Russia. The banking / military-industrial cartel gets to set the rules in the US.
What "should be", however, is an entirely different matter. "The majority of people controlling my house" should consist of exactly one person - me. That's the definition of private property. I should be the one setting the rules in my house - not "the majority of the people", not "the majority of Americans", not "the majority of the residents of Washington". My ownership of my private property should not be consistent upon the will of a group of people in a randomly selected geographical area.
Warlords are not "anarchy", warlords are proto-governments, feudal governments, whatever you call them. Anarchy means "no rulers", no warlords, in particular.
> Warlords are not "anarchy", warlords are proto-governments, feudal governments, whatever you call them. Anarchy means "no rulers", no warlords, in particular.
Exactly. Government (a collective domination) is only more humane the more its architecture is built to transparently protect people from tyranny. Tyranny especially includes itself: tyranny of government, of groups, and of individuals. It might be from a mafia. It might be a Congress. It might be a roving gang. It might be the head of a state. It's subjecting you physically and economically either way.
So begins the complexity of how to have a system of governance that can limit people from claiming power over others. The US didn't achieve this, sadly, compared to the corporate oligarchy it continues to entrench itself into. Having a more humane system than what most dictatorships had was a worthy cause, especially in the 18th century. It's a low bar to set and mentally dwell in now though. Imagine a world where there are no people who want to improve or truly change the systems into which they're violently subjected. It's a scary thought. It looks a lot like reality.
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.
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.
So, say, the first American settlers used to own their houses because of an agreement with the British government - right? Now, at the exact moment they wished to secede, and started the War of Independence, they violated the agreement, and lost their property rights - right? So anyone could walk into anyone else's home, anyone could take anyone else's stuff... Communism! ;)
"Agreements" with sovereign powers are only sometimes worth the paper on which they're printed. A well-stocked armory, however, tends to retain its value in all climates.
