Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

Because it literally is a right within the EU. The US calls it the right of free movement which is a derived right from the privileges and immunities clause of the constitution.

If you think this wasn't a right have y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want?

As for the justification for why it's a basic human right

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

> Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel

> It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

View on HN

What are the limits to this right?

Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses. Obviously each individual doing their own thing isn't a problem, but when a lot of people do that thing it becomes a problem.

We all love the idea of freedom, but it always requires responsibility. When individuals do not take this responsibility then issues like the tragedy of the commons manifest.

So put a fee on the bridge or a queuing system. People are still 'free' to move on the bridge. In fact bridge taxes and highway taxes are quite common.

> Let's say you have a right to travel down a road with a bridge on it. Then 1000 people decide to travel across it at once and it collapses.

We generally solve these purely hypothetical problems that never actually occur by ignoring them.

Love it!

Hypothetical you say? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Bridge,_London

That bridge wasn't overwhelmed by an unexpected large number of people. It had a design flaw, which was fixed.

After they limited the number of people that could cross at any given time, and then closed the bridge 2 days later. Basically the exact scenario described above as "hypothetical".

It was overwhelmed... yes it was a design flaw. That's the point.

I have a pedestrian bridge near me with a signposted 30 person limit.

So the court would compel the state to build a stronger bridge

> y'all never wondered why states don't simply ban people they don't want?

I think that's called "having a warrant out for your arrest" and it's always mystified me that each state keeps their own list of personas non grata

Reply on news.ycombinator.com