SLN, and MAlign playing catch up with Manticoran superiority

Jonathan_S wrote:Apparently East Germans at IIRC >50% rejection were unfree. But over 2% of US residents are apparently barred from entering Canada due to prior DUI convictions, and virtually no US residents are permitted (by the US) to travel to Cuba but I presume you view US residents as free. So where's the cut-off?

The fact that another country won't give you permission to enter into their territory is not a restriction on freedom of travel in the source country. Sovereign countries have the right to choose which non-citizens they let in.

The prohibition to enter embargoed countries is a doozy. I don't know how to properly explain that one.

As for Sanctuary, that fell under temporary exigencies of war: it was imperative for National Security that travel be restricted. It wasn't too different from Manticore-B in the same period, which became almost entirely a military reservation, though of course the details make all the difference: citizens were allowed to enter and leave, so long as they followed proper procedures.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The fact that another country won't give you permission to enter into their territory is not a restriction on freedom of travel in the source country. Sovereign countries have the right to choose which non-citizens they let in.

To be fair, it is still a restriction on travel; just not by the origin country, as you say.

The prohibition against entering embargoed countries is just a stricter version of the travel advisories that governments put out suggesting that it is not safe to go to certain areas, because of disease, crime or war. For instance, there is this current advisory:

The U.S. Department of State released a formal warning not to travel to Haiti and urged American citizens there now to leave immediately due to the rise in gang violence, crime, political unrest...

tlb wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:The fact that another country won't give you permission to enter into their territory is not a restriction on freedom of travel in the source country. Sovereign countries have the right to choose which non-citizens they let in.

To be fair, it is still a restriction on travel; just not by the origin country, as you say.

The prohibition against entering embargoed countries is just a stricter version of the travel advisories that governments put out suggesting that it is not safe to go to certain areas, because of disease, crime or war. For instance, there is this current advisory:

The U.S. Department of State released a formal warning not to travel to Haiti and urged American citizens there now to leave immediately due to the rise in gang violence, crime, political unrest...

I think there's still a difference between a warning (go there at your own risk) and a prohibition (if you go there, and we get to know it, we'll punish you).

tlb wrote:The prohibition against entering embargoed countries is just a stricter version of the travel advisories that governments put out suggesting that it is not safe to go to certain areas, because of disease, crime or war. For instance, there is this current advisory:

The U.S. Department of State released a formal warning not to travel to Haiti and urged American citizens there now to leave immediately due to the rise in gang violence, crime, political unrest...

markusschaber wrote:I think there's still a difference between a warning (go there at your own risk) and a prohibition (if you go there, and we get to know it, we'll punish you).

Penny might say that is just "mere bureaucratic red tape".

Yes, there is a difference; I said there was. But that difference is the attached legal penalty, so it is an advisory with teeth. Frankly I am not sure why all advisories do not come with fines, payable if you get into the trouble that was being warned about.

tlb wrote:
Yes, there is a difference; I said there was. But that difference is the attached legal penalty, so it is an advisory with teeth. Frankly I am not sure why all advisories do not come with fines, payable if you get into the trouble that was being warned about.

I think it is insane the # of people who ignore said warnings, yet still want their governments to protect them/extract them when events go sideways.

Theemile wrote:I think it is insane the # of people who ignore said warnings, yet still want their governments to protect them/extract them when events go sideways.

Well, sure. It’s like the plan “We invest in risky assets. We keep all the profits, if there are loses the government will just have the taxpayers cover them.” It worked out for the banks just fine.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:

Jonathan_S wrote:Apparently East Germans at IIRC >50% rejection were unfree. But over 2% of US residents are apparently barred from entering Canada due to prior DUI convictions, and virtually no US residents are permitted (by the US) to travel to Cuba but I presume you view US residents as free. So where's the cut-off?

The fact that another country won't give you permission to enter into their territory is not a restriction on freedom of travel in the source country. Sovereign countries have the right to choose which non-citizens they let in.

The prohibition to enter embargoed countries is a doozy. I don't know how to properly explain that one.

As for Sanctuary, that fell under temporary exigencies of war: it was imperative for National Security that travel be restricted. It wasn't too different from Manticore-B in the same period, which became almost entirely a military reservation, though of course the details make all the difference: citizens were allowed to enter and leave, so long as they followed proper procedures.

Thank you!

The reason I exited the conversation is that it has gotten just plain silly.

tlb wrote:The prohibition against entering embargoed countries is just a stricter version of the travel advisories that governments put out suggesting that it is not safe to go to certain areas, because of disease, crime or war. For instance, there is this current advisory:

The U.S. Department of State released a formal warning not to travel to Haiti and urged American citizens there now to leave immediately due to the rise in gang violence, crime, political unrest...

markusschaber wrote:I think there's still a difference between a warning (go there at your own risk) and a prohibition (if you go there, and we get to know it, we'll punish you).

tlb wrote:Penny might say that is just "mere bureaucratic red tape".

Yes, there is a difference; I said there was. But that difference is the attached legal penalty, so it is an advisory with teeth. Frankly I am not sure why all advisories do not come with fines, payable if you get into the trouble that was being warned about.

No, penny will NOT! And I said as much. By referencing the Final Wars and our current pandemic.

penny wrote:I was not saying that Pritchart is incorrect, within the context and the meaning of her statement. She is proudly acknowledging that freedom to travel is a right of all citizens of Haven; that her beloved Republic recognized the right. Apart from that, I am attempting to make it clear that it is more than that. That the right to travel is a right of all human beings, separated by any right or lack thereof granted by any government. After all, Saint Just's government might not have recognized the right.

There are exceptions. Our own pandemic is one of them. But that is different. It is a measure taken to protect all of mankind. Just as it were during the Final Wars. At any rate, the inherent rights of human beings should not be dependent upon any government.

markusschaber wrote:I think there's still a difference between a warning (go there at your own risk) and a prohibition (if you go there, and we get to know it, we'll punish you).

tlb wrote:Penny might say that is just "mere bureaucratic red tape".

Yes, there is a difference; I said there was. But that difference is the attached legal penalty, so it is an advisory with teeth. Frankly I am not sure why all advisories do not come with fines, payable if you get into the trouble that was being warned about.

penny wrote:No, penny will NOT! And I said as much. By referencing the Final Wars and our current pandemic.

True, you did reference the Final Wars and our current pandemic as examples of government imposed exceptions meant protect us. I have merely been pointing out that there are many "examples of government imposed exceptions meant protect us". To the extent that this is a "right" whose lawful exercise is very much dependent on government actions and the "bureaucratic red tape" is a result of restrictive laws passed by those governments.

tlb wrote:

penny wrote:I was not saying that Pritchart is incorrect, within the context and the meaning of her statement. She is proudly acknowledging that freedom to travel is a right of all citizens of Haven; that her beloved Republic recognized the right. Apart from that, I am attempting to make it clear that it is more than that. That the right to travel is a right of all human beings, separated by any right or lack thereof granted by any government. After all, Saint Just's government might not have recognized the right.

There are exceptions. Our own pandemic is one of them. But that is different. It is a measure taken to protect all of mankind. Just as it were during the Final Wars. At any rate, the inherent rights of human beings should not be dependent upon any government.

markusschaber wrote:I think there's still a difference between a warning (go there at your own risk) and a prohibition (if you go there, and we get to know it, we'll punish you).

tlb wrote:Penny might say that is just "mere bureaucratic red tape".

Yes, there is a difference; I said there was. But that difference is the attached legal penalty, so it is an advisory with teeth. Frankly I am not sure why all advisories do not come with fines, payable if you get into the trouble that was being warned about.

penny wrote:No, penny will NOT! And I said as much. By referencing the Final Wars and our current pandemic.

True, you did reference the Final Wars and our current pandemic as examples of government imposed exceptions meant protect us. I have merely been pointing out that there are many "examples of government imposed exceptions meant protect us". To the extent that this is a "right" whose lawful exercise is very much dependent on government actions and the "bureaucratic red tape" is a result of restrictive laws passed by those governments.

Oh my word! Anyone should know that bureaucratic red tape comes in all shapes and forms. I DID say that bureaucratic red tape "COULD" be viewed as an ally to travel; as a means, as a path. IF such red tape is not TOO restrictive. Such as it was with East Germany. East Germans could not exchange enough of their currency for the destination's currency. Like Czechoslovakia. So after you arrived you did not have enough money to BUY anything. If you did not return, you can bet your family members would not be allowed to go ANYWHERE. Lines at the border were so long that only the healthy could handle it. Etc., etc. I have heard horror stories from my Romanian friends; some of whom were Romanian by way of East Germany. I have bookends made from the Berlin Wall.

Referencing East Germany as a country who allowed its citizens to travel is asinine! They were not traveling. They were FLEEING!