[morgante]

> There's no innate human right to freedom of movement within other societies.

Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.)

Without governments, there is no impedance to freedom of movement. This isn't merely theoretical: as governments have become stronger and their reach extended across the globe, the ability to move freely has correspondingly decreased.

[kobeya]

I don't think "human right" means what you think it does. Before governments, anybody could straight up murder anyone else, as long as they were ruthless enough to also murder anyone who might want to avenge the deceased. The world was a viscious place ruled by the strong, with no guarantees of anything. "Human rights" are something that didn't exist in the state of nature but were invented afterwards.

[morgante]

> I don't think "human right" means what you think it does.

This is a rude way of approaching a discussion. Don't make my assumptions about my knowledge.

A much better way of starting a discussion would be to state what you believe the definition of a human right is. There are in fact many different philosophical views on what human rights are, with many philosophers in fact arguing that their origin is in natural rights. [0]

> "Human rights" are something that didn't exist in the state of nature but were invented afterwards.

That's pretty much what is implied by my first line:

> Sure there is, at least if you acknowledge the notion of human rights in the first place. (There's no "innate human right" to not be tortured.)

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_human_rights