sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Should people be allowed to move freely around the world?
Is it right that they are prevented from doing so?
Is it right that they are prevented from doing so?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should people be allowed move freely around the world?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Can I take a stroll through your bedroom?
Move or live?
I'd settle for an open border with Canuckistan.
(Then I wouldn't have to drive thru Ohioistan as often.)
(Then I wouldn't have to drive thru Ohioistan as often.)
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
To a large extent, they already are. I don't have to inform Belgium if I want to visit their country, though I do have to go through some minor checkpoints. Necessarily, if I want to take up semi-permanent residency, the hurdles are much larger because I want more than a simple holiday. Is this a problem?
Indeed, StephenW, you have every right to prevent whomever you wish from entering your home. Again... is this a problem?
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
Whilst aware that many factors need to be considered to answer ur question properly, im going to provisionally say yes, that is people should not be arbitrarily prevented from freely moving around the world. (Arbitrary being the key word). That people should have such a right by default, only then to be suitably encroached upon in circumstances that justly demand it.
Additionally there is a difference between people having a freedom from zero border control, and the freedom to move within a system of border control. The latter might still allow for the freedom to go anywhere you please, so long as you get the paperwork right, and are ok with providing some level of transparency to your movements and intent.
When you asked ur question, did you mean free as in unchallenged, or also unchecked aswell?
Last edited:
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
Yes.
No.
After the border control was removed in most of Europe there has been a quite significant increase of strange homeless people in Copenhagen, homeless people who are not natives.
I didn't see them before, but that doesn't mean they did not exist, just that I lived in blissful ignorance of their existence.
I like that I can travel from the arctic to the mediterranean without the use of papers, I only wish it didn't stop there.
I had a little funny experience recently. I neded some photo identification, and since I don't have a drivers license I went to find my passport.
It turns out it expired in 2002. I never had reason to renew it
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Both.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
That's my question
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
I thought the Canuckistani-Revoltistani border was open. I guess not.
It used to be didn't it?
What did you do to offend the Canuckistani?
Why is the border closed?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Checked seems fine. I meant unchallanged, i.e. if person x wants to up sticks and move to ----------- should they be free to do so.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Me too.
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
In a perfect world I would agree with both.
In this not so perfect world I am not sure if I would really support peoples right to move anywhere they wanted and live there.
Possibly the people already living there should have some sort of a say... Not really sure what the rules should be ... will have to give it some more thought...
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I was just establishing that the concept of private property means that free movement isn't unconditional. It isn't a question of any restrictions imposed by a government are automatically unreasonable but at what level such restrictions are legitimate.
You are approaching this more rationally than I feared when originally replied.
Crossing the US border requires a minimum of presenting of proper papers, justifying the visit, stating where you're going, & answering other questions.
That's the easy part. Drive a truck, have some tools, &....heaven forbid.....move a piece of machinery....& there are long delays, more questions,
challenges to one's proof of ownership of the machinery, & in one case having a machine gun (an M16 variant) pointed at me while the truck was searched.
We Americanistanians are a contentious, bullying, officious & dim bunch. So I even programmed my GPS to make Canuckistan an area to avoid at all cost.
Doesn't it seem odd? I can travel thru states like Ohio, PA, NJ, etc without a care.
But states like Ontario involve enduring the Gestapo.
You'd think it was a completely different country, eh?
Last edited:
Pretty good questions, Stephen.
My personal take is that we must aim for such a change, yes.
It is no longer quite viable to have actual borders.
My personal take is that we must aim for such a change, yes.
It is no longer quite viable to have actual borders.
lunakilo
Well-Known Member
You are scary looking Revoltingest, but a machine gun sounds a bit like over reacting.
I thought so too.
The sight of a white haired guy wearing a Hawaiian shirt, shorts & sandals standing there with arms spread at gun point must have looked odd indeed.
(I look more scruffy than dangerous.) Mrs Revolt & friends accompanying me were amused when the guard said my hands must be extended because "they can kill".