anonymous question

As I have already written, in the dispute between Svetov and Kichanova, I am more on the girl’s side, but I generally understand Misha’s position, and I think I will be able to clarify the issue that concerns you.

Mikhail defends the visa regime as a protection of freedom of association. That is, entry for anyone is prohibited by default (this is a manifestation of the freedom not to associate), but if there is an invitation from a citizen of the country, the visa must be issued unconditionally; otherwise, this is again a violation of the freedom of association. The inviter shares responsibility for the behavior of the invitee along with the invitee themselves—this is a standard institution of suretyship. Thus, the right to decide who to let into the country and who not to let in is held not by an official, but by a specific citizen, and he is the one accountable to other citizens for how he exercised this right.

I don’t recall Mikhail publicly stating his position exactly in this form, but this seems to me the only interpretation that does not contradict libertarianism. In general, such rules of access to the territory of a country would not be shameful for even a state that has firmly set itself on the path of minarchist reforms to adopt as a temporary solution.