When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas • Hacker News Board

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#111

Post by CalRobert » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:13 PM UTC

ed8 wrote: post #36

CalRobert wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it has a lot to do with the rise of relatively cheap global travel and strong disparity in the median wealth of different nations. 100+ years ago could you travel from a poor country to a wealthy country with relative ease and expect to raise your own standard of living? Either the journey was expensive and arduous, or the situation in places you could travel to was not likely to be a massive improvement on…

I beg to differ with your last argument, France and USA have really different approach in how they support citizens, yet both are currently really opposed to let newcomers enter their borders. I think one problem is like you said, the huge improvement in ones' situation when moving to a new country. Why is there such a big difference ? Why money is concentrated in so little space and groups of people?

France and the US, while different, both offer far better supports to their people than most of the world enjoys. Social security, free public schooling (admittedly of dubious quality), physical security, etc.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#112

Post by beowulf_cluster » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #98

beowulf_cluster wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable? Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain fr…

Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community" Quite frankly the idea that we should treat all ideas with civility and respect doesn't really cut it in reality.

Whatever racism you think you're seeing is only in your head.

Top level commenter didn't call 1914 a "golden age"; they were merely lamenting some of the freedoms we lost a century ago.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#113

Post by tarancato » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #86

tarancato wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they do not deserve anything they and their ancestors haven't worked for. Nobody just "deserves" anything.

> Nobody just "deserves" anything. A few comments up you're saying the French deserved their stuff because their ancestors worked for it.

Nobody just "deserves" anything [just for being born. Someone has to work hard for everything]

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#114

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:19 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #48

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that's entirely fair, the pro-Brexit people had strong opinions about Poles and Italians too.

Eh the pro-brexit people probably feel they're brown anyways.

"Begin at Calais" and all that.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#115

Post by gumby » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:21 PM UTC

chrischen wrote: post #84

frobozz wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ryanair, I guess. Verona to Brussels is 8 Euros. A "meal deal" on the plane is 10.

Why doesn't the US have such fares?

The European competition authorities are quite strong. This is one part of popular opposition to Europe -- many regulations for standardization or unlocking restricted markets gore national heros in protected markets (there are plenty of other reasons for the opposition -- let's not start a flame war in this thread).

In the US this standardization process happened over a century ago thanks to the railroads. Starting in the 1980s competition law was successively weakened. In addition the cartels were able to buy legislation they needed. Hence there is little competition in airfare or internet service compared to Europe. Large chains control the downtowns of most cities and suburbs.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#116

Post by zo1 » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:25 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #98

beowulf_cluster wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable? Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain fr…

Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community" Quite frankly the idea that we should treat all ideas with civility and respect doesn't really cut it in reality.

>"Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community""

Ironically, that last part is probably a good part of why you are being down voted.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#117

Post by zo1 » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #110

MarkMc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The freedom of movement within the EU is definitely not based on race, but on the citizenship of any of the Schengen Area countries. That's true, but can't it still be considered racist? It may not be direct, intentional racism, but the net result of UK policy is that white people can enter the UK much easier than black or brown people. If I require that my employees be at least 6 feet tall, isn't that a sexist hir…

> If I require that my employees be at least 6 feet tall, is that a sexist hiring policy? Do people who are at least 6 feet tall make better employees? If you require loan applicants to have income sufficient to make the loan payments, and that is true of more white applicants than black applicants, is that a racist policy?

>"Do people who are at least 6 feet tall make better employees?"

Side note: Not sure about better, but definitely get paid more according to some studies.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#118

Post by rustynails » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

zajd wrote: post #98

beowulf_cluster wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it makes people uncomfortable to be told their [sic] racist for calling 100 years ago a golden age... maybe they should be uncomfortable? Glossing over the faulty logic, is your entire motive for posting here is to distress the top-level commenter? You say you're not here to sway opinions. So you're just here to troll for the sake of trolling? I'll admit this is refreshingly candid, but could you just refrain fr…

Again, not trolling, just giving a place for the educated among us to click a button and say "hey, this stupid racist shit doesn't represent the HN community" Quite frankly the idea that we should treat all ideas with civility and respect doesn't really cut it in reality.

I consider Hacker News one of the few open minded forums today. Where a comment adds value, it's sometimes up voted. Your original comment didn't add value to the discussion and I doubt its accuracy.

Take for example, during early conflicts (around 0AD), people of all social standings were known to move from city to city. The Mongols (although much later, 1200s) used this mass migration as a technique to weaken economies. So, travel is not anything like what you described.

The world's history is full of far more diversity than we give credit for.

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#119

Post by kobeya » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

ChicagoBoy11 wrote: post #11

I'm appalled at how many self-described liberals I know who consider themselves to be guardians of civil liberties not bat an eye to these restrictions. The matter of fact is that all the restrictions we put in place with respect to the free movement of peoples -- and the accompanying restrictions around employment, leisure, etc. -- are single-handedly the single biggest breach of human rights in the world. It is abs…

> It is absolutely inexcusable that any person should "defend" any policy short of complete and total freedom of movement.

You've simply asserted this, without any explanation. Want to try giving an argument in favor instead?

In any case, it's not at all obvious to me. Let's say that I own a private piece of land somewhere. Shouldn't I be allowed to say how has the right to traverse it, camp on it, or build their homes on it? If I were forced to let anyone make use of it, I would say my rights were violated. How is immigration any different? We the citizens of country Alphastan collectively own our land and govern what goes on there. Why should we be _forced_ to let anybody tramp through it? How is that liberty, for us?

Re: When world leaders thought you shouldn't need passports or visas

#120

Post by kobeya » Sun, Oct 02, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #19

refriedbeans3 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Humans are individuals, individuals form into groups, and those groups when large and cohesive enough form into societies, civilizations, and now nation states. If those groups are to exist as a "group" they require these shared norms, values, culture to remain a viable group. If part of that culture is to exclude outsiders on the area of la…

> There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies. Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.) Without governments, there is no impedance to freedom of movement. This isn't merely theoretical: as governments have become stronger and their reach extended across the globe, the ability to move…

I don't think "human right" means what you think it does. Before governments, anybody could straight up murder anyone else, as long as they were ruthless enough to also murder anyone who might want to avenge the deceased. The world was a viscious place ruled by the strong, with no guarantees of anything. "Human rights" are something that didn't exist in the state of nature but were invented afterwards.