• OurToothbrush
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    They’d kick you out and burn down your house or kill you for being an invader?

    That is a complete anachronism, unless you actually were an invader. Have you actually researched this or are you just taking your assumptions and trying to apply them to history?

    • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Go read some Greek history on the city states and ostracism, as well as the fact that it only worked because they had slaves and subjugated women?

      • OurToothbrush
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Exile as punishment for a crime and keeping slaves is distinct from having a border with border controls.

        • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ostracism only required a vote, no crime, and no defense was allowed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism

          The penalty for returning was death.

          Presumably even though there were no border controls, they would kill you if you returned.

          Honestly, I’m not sure what the fixation with a guy in a booth is about. Whether you get denied entry and they throw you out, or if they exile or ostracize you, what’s the difference?

          • OurToothbrush
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Literally whether you can control human migration between territories.

            • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              But if you can throw people out, and kill them when they come back why is it that different?

              • OurToothbrush
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                Denying entry to random people is different than telling someone to leave?

                Imagine the difference between a bar with a bouncer at the door and a bar without, and then apply that principle at a much larger scale.

                • stevehobbes@lemy.lol
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Honestly, it seems the same. If a bar doesn’t want Jews in it and the bartender asks everyone if they’re Jewish or a bouncer at the door feels like a distinction without a difference.

                  There’s no additional liberty, the people who own the bar set the rules.

                  • OurToothbrush
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    But it makes it much harder to control who is in a space, which means in practice there are additional liberties.