> What difference does it make if someone has been asked or not? The rules apply anyway, consent or consensus is not required.
You're essentially cheering for coercion, but without seeing it.
What does it matter if a woman consented to having sex with a guy, if the guy has a rule book where he wrote down that "all women must have sex with me"?
> if they don't like their system, they're free to change it
Oh right. Just like women are free to petition the jolly roaming rapist guy with his rulebook. If they can convince him that a change in the rules is necessary, then maybe they won't be raped anymore. If they don't like the system, they're free to change it!
But until the rules are changed, women will be getting raped but that's their own fault because they just haven't bothered changing the rules (by writing letters to the rule guy, or perhaps dropping pieces of paper into "voting boxes").
> people with self-determination, i.e., a country, have decided
You know that's just flat out false, especially considering you've personally never been asked about it.
> countries agree to give up part of sovereignty
Again, you were not asked. Neither was any other ordinary person affected.
> the tourist visa explicitly has a number of terms and conditions
I brought up the idea of the Social Contract. You're talking about something completely unrelated, and thus not addressing my point.
But whatever. You're most likely just yet another psychopath spewing your bullshit, and this account is probably shadow-banned already, because I'm.. wrong?
> I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that since 3 years ago Cyprus (among others) 'sells' EU permanent residency permits to rich foreigners.
You know, the solution to "problems" like that is to abolish visas altogether.
A visa is essentially a permission to exist in a certain geographical area. Why exactly do you need one?
Yes I know governments won't let you in/out without one, but what sense does it make?
What possible moral justification is there, for preventing you from moving freely when you're not harming anyone else?
You've heard of people "misusing" their visas, right? But how crazy is the idea of "misusing" your permission to exist in an area?
How crazy is it that visas come with a list of activities you're allowed to engage in?
For example, if you're on a tourist visa, you're not allowed to work in exchange for money, nor sell your company's product to someone.
You might think it's because governments need to keep track of who owes them taxes and how much, but um.. what sense does that make?
Say you were born in England and lived there all your life. Then you fly over to Thailand on a tourist visa, and you fix someone's bicycle in exchange for a small fee.
How/why is Thailand's government entitled to a cut of the money you made in doing that? If you believe in the Social Contract, does that get temporarily passed from England to Thailand, for the duration of your stay?
Or did you perhaps unwittingly sign a new one with Thailand, by entering their territory?
Would sitting on a plane that happens to cross some specific unseen line on a map constitute agreeing to a binding obligation to hand over some of your income to the organization "in charge" of the area you entered?
Of course not, but that's what The Rules say. But why/how are we bound by The Rules?
Well, we're not. Not in any objective, moral sense at all. But we all obey the rules anyway.
Why is that, besides to avoid being punished for disobedience?
How exactly are overstays a problem? It's just a person existing in a geographical area longer than the Mafia controlling it would prefer.
All this "theorycrafting" about how best to coerce people for the greater good is silly.
Blah-de-blah-de-blah the government this and the states that and then "we" make everyone do X and Y because Z and then there will be much rejoicing because people have been successfully coerced for the greater good!
Like if I show up at your door each day and force you to skip on one foot for 5 minutes, at gunpoint, that's good because you might not get enough exercise otherwise!
Anyone can see that would be crazy, but when you talk about some huge, gray abstract masses of people, then it's just fine to intervene in their lives in countless different ways.
How about "we" protect people from becoming drug addicts through a certain harmless "gateway drug" by threatening them with life-ruining prison sentences for using/possessing said gateway drug?
Oh wait, "we" tried that already. It didn't "work"[1], and actually WE had no say in any of it!
[1] Unless, of course, the real goal was to hand everyone else's money to the prison industrial complex, in which case it worked splendidly!