Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: It would be lovely to be able to live wherever you would wish to live, but people often face the constraints of many factors in their lives that do not allow them to live where they may wish. So it depends on each individual. Some people may want to live in a foreign country but may have family obligations and duties or may wish to live at home and their job requirements do not allow them to live at home. So this being a, a world where we are, we don't get everything we want, the ability to live where we want must take into consideration all the factors that one goes through in analyzing where it is best for one to live in any given circumstance in life. Many people from developing worlds would like to live in the developed world, but they have many difficulties. Some governments will not allow them the papers, the necessary documentation to be able to meet the requirements of the laws of the country to which they wish to move. So there are many factors that impede one's ability to be able to live where one may wish. But as a matter of opportunity, it would be lovely if we were all able to move about and go where we would want to. Is it possible? No, not in every situation, not in every circumstance. Is it appropriate? It depends from individual to individual. With respect to the laws and regulations of the laws of a country, they vary and are diverse, and laws are implemented and created by countries for a variety of reasons. So this actually is a very complex question even though it is posed in a very simple way.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: Yes, we should have this right. Everybody should live there where he wants to, everyone should be allowed to live there as he wishes. But this has its limits too. One is not allowed to enter any other's house and just decide: "I want to live here at yours house'." It is not such simple. One should be allowed to live, to stay and to go there where one wants to, as long as one does not disturb or do harm to others. So you have to be considerate of others. But as long as one does not disturb others, one should be allowed to live there where one wants to. Sayings such as "You are born in a country, so you belong to this country." are mindless. Country, state and nation do exist for the individual and not vice versa. Every individual should select his own life and his way as he will. So again: As long as he does not disturb others.

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: We are born into this world in a place with the family, with the life in conditions that are the kind of -- yoga says it is our karma. So, we’re born into this life with karma. And do we have the right to change that? Do we have the right to choose where we live? It comes right after the question of our freedom. Do you have the freedom to choose on where we want to live? And in some cultures in countries, it’s a very easy one. Yes, we have the freedom to choose where we want to live. I want to live in California, I can live in California. If I decide to live in the other part of the country, I can. If want to go to Italy, or to France, or South America, to Germany, wherever I want to go in some ways, if I want to live there, I can. And in other cases you can’t because of different political things that are in the way or that have been set up so that not everyone can choose. And in other country like America they exercise that freedom of choice more than in other countries. Whereas in other countries, people don’t have the resources available to them to choose, to step out of the current cycle that they’re in, the hardship that they’re in because of the economics and the social systems that they’ve been born into; it’s very hard to choose to leave and to move from where they live. Should we have the right to choose where we want to live? Should we have the right? Could we have the right? Do we have the right? Do we need to have the right? We are the children of the earth. We walk upon her land. She supports every step that we take. It’s the mother that we live upon her should be in a way of respect and responsibility, and it does take in the consideration in where you live, though it depends on the culture that wish to discern yourself with, and if that is supportive of who you are as a person. And if you need to choose a different context then to be who you are, which truly that you are, and so be it.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: I think we should have the right to choose how to live better. And for that reason, we need to make every place in the world, on this planet, a better place to live. There's a myth that the grass is greener on the other fence of my neighbor property. We need to eliminate this myth. And if we make every place in the world a better place to live, then the choice is not where I should live, the choice would be, how can I make a better way to live.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Yes. Everybody should be able to live where they want. It’s a fundamental human right. There are many beautiful places in the world and the life experience that you have is so greatly effected. I myself love the tropics, historically is a dangerous place to live. It was malarial and there are other problems, not that I’m a great fan of air conditioning but I think you can live there now in safety. And my heritage is I’m Scandanavian and we have to use a lot of sun block to be in the tropics. In fact I live in the mountains right now, I like to ski. But I think everybody should have an opportunity to be able to move to a place that’s more to their liking whether it’s to the city, the country, the mountains, the sea. And have an opportunity to have different experiences in their life. And hopefully that will become possible for more and more people as time goes by.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: Free choice of residence should be one of the basic human rights. In this sense we should forget expressions like asylum, refuge, exile, etc people must have right to live where they like the best. I live in Berlin not as immigrant even that I left my own country out of the political and moral reasons. But I started the life here out of the free choice, I also could have gone somewhere else but I didn’t. There today I'm in Berlin on the [...] on the Babel square trying as all of the others to change the meaning of this square where once books have been burned and now there is a monument of Book here in front of the university.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: I would say, yes. Although, in a sense we do have the freedom to choose where we live, it’s very essential I think that when we choose where we’re going to live that we respect the pre-existing values and traditions of that place. I think many of the racial and ethnic conflicts around the world are due to the fact that people do migrate and obviously they carry their own traditions with them, but often don’t then respect the conditions they find where they come to. So, I suppose on a practical side when we think about emigration and immigration, do we have the right to choose? I think, yeah, given that again we respect the values of the place where we’re coming to. Those will really be set down, I guess, by the country of origin, those criteria are set down. This is a good question, because I mean as world population is rising and particularly with conflicts around the world, there’s a lot of people desperate to move to places of safety. Thinking about this a little more, with the threats to climate and climate change right now and we’re already seeing rising in sea levels. In fact, in Britain, I’ve just come over from London and apparently the Thames barrier, the River Thames into London is noticing a 4 centimeter increase in the water level coming out of the sea. So, since 80 percent of the world’s population line lowland areas and coastal regions, I think the pressure of people to move to higher ground is going to be greater and greater. So, I think this question really points to the heart of something we’ve got to consider, which is you know, how do we choose the place we want to live and how do you do that in a way that’s equitable and respectful. It’s a great question.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Catherine David: In principle, it seems as if the liberty of circulation is a fundamental liberty. This is on the level of principles. Now if we look at the level of reality, the choice of circulating as we want it and where we want to go is extremely dependent on the where they come from dependent on their economic standard. So, I think in deed and once again, that on the level of principles, it is a fundamental right and on the level of realities you have to refrain from this right, I think that there is no need to be a genius, one has to take a look around to see that the circulation of human beings is much more difficult than the circulation of money and of goods. I think when we are talking of, let us say more liberty of circulation, we have to be a bit honest to see that money and the things, the objects, the goods circulate more and more better and the human beings do not in such a good way. We have to know that a certain number of individuals, subjects coming from certain countries are not allowed to move and can only do it under illegal conditions, extremely unsafe that risk and endanger their lives. I think that all this demonstrates that a right of absolute time is not a relative right.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think, yes, I would like to choose where I live; the environment, where I am close to, whether it's close to my work, where I feel easier. But of course, it should be a limit. If I want to live up in the Mars I shouldn't be allowed, or if I want to eat, to live and sleep in my car in the middle of the road or on the side of the road, I think I shouldn't be allowed. But as long as it doesn't offend anybody, we should choose to live where we want. But as today, many people who want to visit other countries, it's a hard process to get visitors and sometimes you are denied simply because they suspect you that you want to return back home, and mostly of course it is difficult for the developing countries. And I think it is so sad that you're simply denied to even step your foot - your feet - to other countries. For example, one time I wanted to go to Dubai, but because I have a 1951 Geneva Convention passport I was not allowed and the reason for this I asked they told me because I didn't belong anywhere, because I didn't have a country. And I felt very sad that simply you as a human being, you are denied to go to a country of the other human being, simply because they think you might stay there and not return back to your country.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: Many people in the world don't have the right to choose where they want to live. In the past decades there have been more and more streams of migrants, never before in our history have the streams of migrants been as strong as in the past decades. If we consider that millions of people from Latin America, Central America, from Guatemala, from Nicaragua and from Mexico as well stream to America. If we consider, a scandal, that every day hundreds, if not thousands of African refugees land on the beaches of the canary islands where they are confronted with noisy and drinking tourists. This is a serious question. Of course we have to respect the national authority of a state, for instance of the European Commission, but on the other hand we can't build up tents and military camps along the border of North Africa in order to prevent these streams of migration. We have to establish economic conditions in these states of Latin America and Africa that guarantee lives worthy of a human being for the population, also in social responsibility, so that the wish to emigrate does not emerge at all. On the other hand we know that today the payments amounting to billions by emigrants in North America e.g. flow back to Mexico or Nicararagua or Africa, that these payments make up more than just a big part of the gross national product of these states, that is to say here we have the inversion of economic influence. These are high prices that are paid for this bondage, this is also a loss of cultural identity and thus of human identity. We have to exclude dictatorial periods such as the Nazi period. Today it is about establishing economic situations in the so called peripheral states by development policies, by responsible social policies, by educational policies that make migration unnecessary under these circumstances, so that these states are enabled to secure their population and to prevent streams of migration at all, not just to reduce the number of potential migrants. But this is a mere utopia, this will not happen, because the inequalities between the states of the first world and the peripheral states increase and don't decrease, because of a misled and purely economic globalization. The gross national products of the African states in the past thirty, forty years, have not increased, in proportion to the world's gross national product they have in fact even decreased. Africa's share of the world does not increase, it decreases. Other states such as Korea or India increase, but Africa decreases, consequently we have more streams of migration, this must surely be stated.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Cornel West: I think a basic freedom, a basic right is certainly to be able to choose where one lives. But, of course, some responsibility goes alongside all choices; and one fundamental form of responsibility has to do with ties, has to do with bonds, relation to one’s family, relation to one’s vocation and relation to one’s profession. Usually, where one lives has something to do with employment possibilities, it has something to do with one’s love interest, it has something to do with one’s geographical roots, with history and heritage. But in the end, should we have the right to choose where we live? Absolutely, but all choice is dependent on a context. And all choice is tied to certain kinds of responsibility and culpabilities that we must never overlook.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Well, this question truly answers two things. Whether we have the right to choose where we live or not, I mean it concerns to nationality. For me, a base where we are being brought by our mothers from their wombs, I think we are not given the choice to choose where we live. However, the moment, the moment that we become mature, maybe that’s the thing that we can have the freedom to live; however, we are, of course, constrained by jurisdiction restrictions. You are not just free to relate -- let’s say you want to live in Germany and you can do it. You cannot just say I want to live in Europe and you can do it. You are going to be considering the jurisdiction for this specific government. And so I think in this question we don’t have the right to chose where we live, especially when our mother is beginning to -- giving us birth to--And still if we are matured enough to chose where we live, we are still constrained by restrictions and it is hard to say we have the freedom to choose where we live.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Yes, I think it’s kind of--in an ideal world, yes, why not? It would be wonderful to decide that one wants to live in a warm country and just move there. But one cannot forget and cannot not take into account that there is beside borders, which define a place, people have a claim to a certain area of the world by setting a certain culture in that territory. One place belongs to someone not only by some international charts which draw borders, but one sets claim to a certain territory by imposing its culture and way of living and values to that specific territory. Choosing freely to where you live has to include choosing, making a choice, a conscious choice, of starting to renegotiate your personal culture and the culture where you come from. To meet the people there, and that’s something, there’s a challenge of this growing migration, community of migration, that is, migrants that is building in the world. Migration is increasing in the world because of conflicts but also because of freedom of movement, which is also in some degree happening and one cannot take, one cannot think of moving from one place to another without taking into account the culture renegotiation that one has to do to adapt itself to the new place. And the place maybe, in return, negotiating its own culture to be more acceptant. I’m very skeptical to kind of a free movement of people by choice without investing in something.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: Actually no one ever asks to born: “I want to be born into the Smith family”, “I want to be born into the Stewart family”, “I want to be born into a family of people with blue eyes”, “I want to be born into a family of black or indigenous people”. We are just born. We are born somewhere on planet Earth and if we don’t want to stay there, we go somewhere else. But also, when we go somewhere else, we are discriminated for being an immigrant. We suffer all kinds of discrimination. If you are indigenous and go to the urban world, you suffer because you are indigenous and nobody understands you and you start suffering every sort of consequences for being considered a social stigma or a folklorical. So, we don’t have opportunities to choose it, because we are not the creator. Only the creator chooses where we are going to be born. And people, all of them, need to have more respect with human beings, with different races, different ethnic groups, different languages, different ways of being, of viewing and facing God, of facing spirituality. We human beings are too complex and have many identities, so these identities need to be respected by other identities. As I said, this hegemony of one over the other needs to end. We need to be free, and have freedom, real freedom, toward this question of power.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: These are two different questions. One is the -- choosing where to live within a given country and then from country to country. Within a given country, absolutely, one should have the right to live where one chooses. But, the problem of course, particularly in third-world countries is the massive influx of people from the countries into the cities creating these monstrous cities. The solution in China has been to limit the movement of people from the country. The ideal situation of course is decentralization, is creating economic opportunities throughout a country so that people don’t feel that they have to move to the capital city or a large city in order to survive. In terms of immigration from country to country, we have to remember that the passport is a modern invention. And in a Utopian world, there would be absolute freedom of migration and immigration. But, that utopian world would be dependent on economic opportunities throughout the world. If people can make a good living at home, they don’t necessarily want to move to another nation. I think the situation -– the case of Ireland in the last 25 years is an interesting one because for -- since the early 19th century, we’ve had huge numbers of Irish moving to the United States for jobs, and yet in the last 15 years or so, with -– 15, 20 years with the birth of the technology industry in Ireland, suddenly the Irish have no reason to leave, and in fact, many people from other places are now moving to Ireland to find work. So, it’s a clear case that, if you had a kind of -– if you had a truly globalized economy, if you had economic opportunity everywhere, in that sense, there would be no need to limit immigration. It should also be said that, particularly in Europe, that the vitalization of European culture is largely -- stems I think from –- the revitalization of European culture is largely stemming from the influx of immigrants. New people bringing new ideas, new ways of thinking about things, new stories to tell, and this is probably the invention of a new Europe beyond nations, let’s say, a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural thing has been the most tremendous thing that’s happened in Europe.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: In principle I think people should have the right to choose where they live. I also think that a lot of the movement around the world of people wanting to move from one place to another has to do with the inequities of our world. The United States, for example, exports a lot of television programs and things that have been rather misleading to the world in many ways, making it seem like the land of milk and honey. I know people were shocked by the pictures of poverty in America after hurricane Katrina and things like that. And many people have come to the United States because they have seen it as the land of opportunity. We also have ever stricter immigration laws in the United States to keep people out. And I think it’s kind of crazy for us to do this false advertising of this as being a desirable place to be in the United States and then keeping people out when they want to come. So it’s a complex issue and it’s a difficult one to solve. We certainly don’t want a world in which people are constantly uprooting themselves and moving around. I think that would be inappropriate. There’s an importance to people being attached to the soil that they live on, to be connected to their ecosystems in intimate ways. I’ve always like the idea of the bioregional movement that rather than drawing arbitrary political boundaries we might divide ourselves according to watershed so that we would care for our water supply and so that we would know our ecosystems and what they can bear in terms of human habitation within them so that we would get along better with the natural world. But again I say in principle I defend the right of people to be able to live everywhere. I wish that we didn’t need passports. I wish that we could all be global citizens. And in a better world I believe most people would want to stay in place much like the cells in our bodies which don’t migrate around. While others such as the blood cells keep moving about. We’ll always have the wanderers. I’m one of them. I’m a world traveler. I love going from country to country and speaking and learning what’s going on in the world and learning from every new culture that I can engage with. But on the other hand I think in a really stable cooperative care and sharing world we wouldn’t need even to do holidays as much because we would have beautiful ecosystems everywhere. We’d be taking care of them. We wouldn’t have that need to get away. So let’s leave the question open, let’s let people decide what they want. And as I say in a better world I think people would decide appropriately.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 1:15:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: It’s absolutely yes. There's a number of factors that constrain this right, we can’t just move all over the planet without considering other factors as well. But in principle, you should have the right to choose where we want to live.

by Ervin Laszlo