I wish I understood why there isn't a move to reinstate border checks in the Schengen area.
It seems ludicrous to me to keep internal borders open when it is clear that the external borders have failed.
But there is a move. In fact, multiple countries have done so, although temporarily: https://euobserver.com/migration/130260
Thing is, border control isn't free; it may not be visible for many of us, but there are a lot of people reliant on the openness of our borders for their daily lives. Imagine having to pass a border check on your way to work - that'd be the reality for many EU citizens nowadays if you were to reintroduce country borders.
And would it really solve the problem? What if those migrants just came by boat anyway? What are we going to do, let'em drown?
I sometimes miss having more black-and-white opinions. Real life is hard.
What's wrong with rescuing them and then shipping them back to the coast they sailed off from? If they're on international waters, there are no legal obligations to treat them as asylum seekers.
The bigger picture is that these situations would very quickly stop happening if the word spread that it's not longer viable as a way to get into the EU.
I think borders can be very valuable to separate groups with conflicting ideologies and worldviews, but I wish you the best luck in advocating that policy in your local political sphere.
This ought to be removed too, along with the whole concept of property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Especially in the Nordic countries. Having grown up in Norway, the idea of people e.g. fencing in fields or forests and keeping people off their land seems ludicrous and to an extent offensive. It's a massive restriction of liberty of the many for the benefit of the few.
(it's worth noting that the freedom to roam is generally restricted to non-urban areas, so e.g. not gardens in residential areas and the like)
Go ahead and abolish all your own property, you're free to do so.
Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
I recently heard "land-ownership tax/renting land from the state instead of owning it" and "100% tax on death/abolish inheritance", I think they're interesting but not without problems.
One could argue that your kids did not earn that money either. As a reasonable middle ground, I think that we there could be a "good future for the children" exemption (at say $20m per child), while the rest is taxed at 100%. This prevents the natural process of concentration of all wealth in the hands of the few.
The process is called war. Properties are not valuable when tenants and landlords keep dying and the properties themselves might get destroyed.
I do not own any private property.
>Or was it more about you wanting to be entitled to product of your fellow man's labor?
No; in fact, the exact opposite. It is about the worker owning the product of his own labour, rather than having it appropriated when production has finished. To each according to his labour.
This is why I insist on working as a contractor and not as an employee: I want to own my intellectual property until I choose to sell it, and I want to create and sell a product that's useful, not be paid for my time.
I live in England. Why can "the people" (although it is surely not the people: it is the government) of Australia decide that I can't come and live there?