The following is a 3 message exchange between 4 users
@9F4H9R48mos8MO
Top Disagreement
There's a reason our homes have both walls AND doors. It allows us to keep those we want out, out, while granting access to those we want in. Same with our country.
@9FB553J8mos8MO
The country is an abstract, it's not an actual property owned by the government. It is a collection of houses and unowned land.
That's a very thought-provoking viewpoint. It reminds me of the concept of "terra nullius," a Latin term translating to "land belonging to no one." Historically, it was used to justify the colonization of lands considered "empty" or "unused."
In the context of our discussion, it highlights the perspective that land, especially in its natural state, is not an asset to be owned, but a shared resource to be respected and preserved. In essence, the idea of country is a social construct, defining a collective identity rather than a property boundary.
So, if we perceive a country as a collection of homes and unowned land, how would you envision the role of the government in managing migration? Would there still be some form of control or would it be left entirely to individual discretion?
