Answered Conundrum Next Conundrum
Should government restrict travel?
Should the State department be able to restrict travel of private citizens to foreign countries, or should they give warnings and leave the final decision up to the individual? Is freedom to make the decision to travel best left up to the individual, or is it better to government make that decision for everyone?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
Marked as Best!
November 01, 2009 09:36 PM
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
This is an issue that has been on my mind alot, regulations, responsibility, and liability.
I have been angered at recent legislation that I feel infringes on my rights as a human being. If I were American I would say it was infringing on my constitutional rights. I understand the necessity to control the percentage of the population that refuses to think for themselves, but whose business is it if I choose to wear a seatbelt? If I choose to smoke in my apartment? If I choose to travel to a country that the governement considers unappealing for some reason?
In the same vein of thought, I should accept the personal responsibilty and consequences of my actions. If I get into a car crash and become paralysed I should accept that and the medical bills that go along with it, if, of course, I have also chosen not to have health insurance. Same goes for the ramifications of smoking, and any possible thing that may happen while I was in a country that I was advised not to go to.
And now we come to liability. Should people win million dollar lawsuits against McDonalds for serving coffee that's too hot? What about suing a cigarette company for throwing a successful add campaign? No. Give your head a shake. Coffee is hot. Cigarettes cause cancer. You knew that. Stupidity is no excuse for ignorance.
People who have travel restrictions due to criminal records or other such things are one thing, but if we supposedly live in a "free country", why does the government feel the need to regulate our "freedom"? Even if it is for our own good. If you are not hurting another person in the process, you should be free to do what you wish.
I have been angered at recent legislation that I feel infringes on my rights as a human being. If I were American I would say it was infringing on my constitutional rights. I understand the necessity to control the percentage of the population that refuses to think for themselves, but whose business is it if I choose to wear a seatbelt? If I choose to smoke in my apartment? If I choose to travel to a country that the governement considers unappealing for some reason?
In the same vein of thought, I should accept the personal responsibilty and consequences of my actions. If I get into a car crash and become paralysed I should accept that and the medical bills that go along with it, if, of course, I have also chosen not to have health insurance. Same goes for the ramifications of smoking, and any possible thing that may happen while I was in a country that I was advised not to go to.
And now we come to liability. Should people win million dollar lawsuits against McDonalds for serving coffee that's too hot? What about suing a cigarette company for throwing a successful add campaign? No. Give your head a shake. Coffee is hot. Cigarettes cause cancer. You knew that. Stupidity is no excuse for ignorance.
People who have travel restrictions due to criminal records or other such things are one thing, but if we supposedly live in a "free country", why does the government feel the need to regulate our "freedom"? Even if it is for our own good. If you are not hurting another person in the process, you should be free to do what you wish.
| Asker's Rating: |
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
Other Answers (3)
October 31, 2009 10:09 PM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I obviously think people have the right to travel, but if someone has charges pending against them, the government has to have a right to limit them. If it didn't, literally everyone could fly out to a country that doesn't perform extradition and no one would ever have to go to jail for anything. Either that, or we could get rid of the concept of bail and just detain all the time. I don't think either of those two options make sense. The system we have in place now is fine.
Helpful Answer?
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
November 01, 2009 01:49 AM
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
I agree with both @randync and @jkepler. Unless the person has some sort of judiciary action pending, I don't see how they can be impeded from traveling, nor do I see how government could possibly make an argument for such a notion, unless it intended to fundamentally change the basic premise of the U.S. Constitution.
But, like all freedoms, comes responsibility. The traveler is the sole person responsible for conducting the due diligence as to their safety. If one travels to a land that one has already been warned of its risks and dangers, then traveler beware and don't expect rescue teams dropping in from helicopters just because you decided to winter in Yemen.
Helpful Answer?
But, like all freedoms, comes responsibility. The traveler is the sole person responsible for conducting the due diligence as to their safety. If one travels to a land that one has already been warned of its risks and dangers, then traveler beware and don't expect rescue teams dropping in from helicopters just because you decided to winter in Yemen.
(0)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Reply
