Hacker News Reader

Comment by snitko | Hacker News Reader

Yes. Many things in the world exist because the majority thinks it's a good idea. Doesn't mean it is. 200 years ago the majority thought slavery was ok. I'm still yet to see anyone who'd convince me why is it that I need to get a permission from a bureaucrat just to see my friend, when my friend doesn't approve of that policy and never voted for anything like that to be instituted.

Me not visiting my friend more often doesn't protect a single soul. All the while, criminals with legalized money buy residencies and citizenship left and right. Tell me more about how that protects anyone even remotely.

View on HN

it comes down to trust. if i were to guess you lock the door to your house. why would you do something which limits the movement of people who want to be in your house. but at the same time you do not have problem giving access to your house to specific people (people you trust). it is same with countries just more complicated as now you are dealing with bunch of people rather than an individual.

visa free travel exists before countries agreed to trust each other for whatever the reason may be (economic/social/etc.). other countries can workout ways for travel but they do not think of it as a priority.

laws exist to cover for the majority of use cases, not individual, well reasoned exceptions. start with hammurabi and read on, the worl of bureaucracy has a lot more background and sense than you imagine.

I do not approve of collectivism, not even in law and order. When you say "laws exist" who are you to decide why they exist? I for one think they exist (in the current, monopolized form) to control the general population while elites are practically exempt. Prove me wrong and please use logic and evidence, not some theory that justifies bureaucracy.

Who are we, as voters in democratic countries, to decide why they exist? We are to decide, by the very definition of democracy.

The visa requirements are not so much for the elites in rich countries; it's more for the general population - particularly in welfare states, the situation is that you can have open borders, or you can have universal welfare benefits for population, but you cannot have both.

Often it seems that it is actually the political and economical elite that wants to do away with immigration controls (to get cheap labor, for instance).

> Doesn't mean it is.

And who are you to decide what's good or not?

Assuming your friend lives in a democracy, and assuming your friend wants you randomly visiting, then if as you say your friend didn't vote on the immigration laws, tell them to be more active.

Have them write to their politi-critters. Get the law revisited. If enough of your friend's friends also agitate and your neighbors generally agree or at least don't oppose, the law will be revised -- problem solved.

If, on the other hand your friend is in the minority, and you being able to visit without immigration permition is still that important to them, they are welcome to emigrate to somewhere visits without visas are open to you.

It takes one to be in those shoes to see how despicable and humiliating the process of getting a visa is.

If you were told you should tell your friends to vote better next time just so they can see you, I'd love to know how that would make you feel.

Here is how it makes me feel.

I've lived all over the world, and also work with many offshore teams in places that don't just take my passport.

I've had to get plenty visas. It's their country, I'm a guest. I fail to understand the insult.

You fail to understand the insult because you don't value liberty and individualism. When you say "it's their country" it is misleading. It's as much theirs as it is the other's person who lives next to them and thinks visas and passports are bullshit. My country doesn't belong to me any more than the other person. Why should I and not the other person decide who can visit?

Judging from your suite of comments here, and your downvoting those who engage with you (misuse of down vote), seems you are confused about how both communities and voting are generally agreed to work.

You're also either confused or disingenuous about the motives and beliefs of those trying to talk with you here, mine included. Good way to stay cocooned in a closed-minded point of view.

I almost never downvote anyone, actually, and I would be happy if that information could be made public somehow. People downvoting you were others and I have absolutely no idea who they are. I don't know how can you "judge" that I downvote by looking at my comment history.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com