I guess anything anyone does is okay as long as they take a dick up their ass, right? McCain was shown on video with a bunch of guys who were way to friendly with him for who he was, which leads one to assume that there was a sexual relationship involved somehow. But I guess that is lost on you, as your lib-dar is so finely attuned to offense you miss the fucking point every fucking time.

In case you missed it again this time, let me spell it out for you. You. Are. A. Fucking. Tool. And. An Idiot.

It's just enough to alert people to the fact that something is happening, allowing them to go dig up details themselves. Instead of biased crap like "We report, you decide" it's more like "we alert, you take a look for yourself and see what is actually going on".

The reason for your wariness is that the vast majority of other political parties advocate for something other than freedom.

When you have a political party that advocates something approaching pure freedom, then their political affiliation is no longer destructive. Freedom is good. Any thing which promotes freedom is a virtue, not a vice.

John McCain met with their leaders, played grab ass with them on camera, and for all we know, had gay sex with them in addition to providing them with MILLIONS in startup funds. Why isn't his ass hanging from the Brooklyn Bridge?

Oh, because he's connected and thus above the law. I almost forgot where I was.

No. You need to understand the difference between negative and positive rights. You have a right to travel. You don't have a right to someone else's vehicle. You should most certainly be able to walk across a border without needing a slip of paper from your government.

You are thinking in a very American centric way. For the third time this thread, much of Europe was composed of states the size of Vatican City. You could walk across three of them in a day. Think about the trade situation in an area like that.

But it was. Much of Europe was composed of states the size of Vatican City. You could walk across three of them in a day without trying too hard.

Also, note that having a passport to aid in travel is very much different from being REQUIRED to have a passport to cross a border. It's like being required to have a business license and a business bank account to have a garage sale. Sure, if you were having them every day, or scaling it up into a "real" business, those things might be a good idea, but requiring EVERYONE to have them is ridiculous.

Says the cited conditions never existed in the past.

References a time in the past where the cited conditions existed.

Statists, everyone! Give them a hand! They sure need it! And they're gonna take it from you even if you don't want to, by force!

Because there were times when people were less free, we can't ever argue that we should have freedoms that we once held in the past, like the UN-recognized human right to freedom of movement. Note that article 13 mentions nothing about passports, and the concept of a passport that you have to pay money for is, in fact, in direct violation of the same article, as it is a restriction on movement.

"Prior to the 1840's people didn't regularly cross borders"

Yes they did. Much of Europe was composed entirely of borders. Remember Italy was a mess of states until the 1870's, same as Germany.

"Passports were invented as a necessity to international travel opening up to the middle and lower classes."

But that's wrong. How could requiring a document (that the individual had to PAY FOR) to enter a country POSSIBLY be cheaper than crossing without it? That doesn't even make sense. Keep in mind that borders were completely porous, and only soldiers were blocked from crossing prior to this time.

"Because you cant imagine the chaos of hundreds of thousands of undocumented border crossings."

You're right, that's why the EU and US have descended into chaos. It's total anarchy, I tellz ya!

"I guarantee every solution you have to that is either going to be stupid, useless or a passport like system (or possibly all three at once)."

Well, considering that felons can get passports from the US, and God knows where else, a more modern solution would be to simply run criminal background checks on people applying for visas (ie those staying for an extended period). Much better to have a private system (which would necessarily transcend borders and *GASP* treat everyone fairly rather than giving Westerners a golden ticket while completely fucking over the huddled masses yearning to be free). No more of these "stateless" people getting stuck in airport terminals or refugee camps. Treat people like fucking people. What a concept.

"If you don't have an etymology to a phrase that stands on its own, you can't use it."

What?

There was a time when people didn't need passports to travel between nations. They were only introduced in the 1840's and only became popular after the American Civil War. Prior to that, human beings had the right to move between nations as they desired, with only the most autocratic (ie feudal, czarist Russia) demanding that their people remain tied to the land where they were born. And indeed, most people travelled between nations without need for one until WWI, when the need for "security" overwhelmed the difficulty of enforcement between nations that were at war, or were in danger of soon going to war.

But, of course, the world is no longer at war, is it?

The question shouldn't be "why should robots have passports?" it is "why should humans?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You know, your use of words of dismissal are mind killers. You would do well to break that habit, and actually read a little into what other people say instead of deriding them.

This is why you can't hold a civil conversation with anyone who believes differently than you do. An educated man can entertain an idea without embracing it. At least that's what Aristotle thought. Perhaps you should endeavor to become educated yourself?

http://www.english-for-student...

Referring to those in charge who can't get rid of the dead weight in their company.

Right, so my explanation of what happened in what is, in nearly 100% of all cases, cited as the absolute worst case of abuse doesn't count, I have to explain EVERY SINGLE ONE. And you don't even bother to name a counterexample.

Sorry, there is no satisfying you. Please never get into a position where your words have arbitrary power over others, because you will hurt and kill them in your hurry to help, because you don't understand economics or the motivations behind human action.