"Our government shouldn't tell us where to travel and where not to travel"

The statement stakes out a broad defense of individual liberty and a narrow view of government power. Travel is not merely recreational; it is an expression of autonomy, curiosity, livelihood, and family life. To decide where to go is to decide whom to learn from, what markets to access, what relationships to maintain. A state that dictates destinations ventures beyond protecting citizens and into prescribing their horizons.

There is also a pragmatic strand: people-to-people contact can be a force for openness in ways that embargoes and isolation rarely achieve. Letting citizens see other systems up close, exchange ideas, and do business often undercuts propaganda and builds empathy. Restricting travel can become a blunt instrument of foreign policy that punishes citizens more than regimes, and it risks turning a democratic government into a gatekeeper of permissible experiences.

The argument is not absolutist. Public safety matters. During a pandemic, an unfolding war, or a specific, credible threat, temporary, narrowly tailored limits may be justified. But the burden of proof should lie with the state. Restrictions should be evidence-based, transparent, time-limited, and subject to oversight. Advisories that inform rather than bans that coerce keep the presumption of freedom intact.

There is a critique of paternalism embedded here. When a government claims to protect adults from their own choices by forbidding travel, it signals distrust of citizens’ judgment. Better tools exist: robust travel advisories, traveler education, targeted sanctions on abusive actors, and legal consequences for those who materially support terrorism, without prohibiting ordinary movement.

Ultimately, the vision is of a society confident enough to let its people see the world and decide for themselves. A democracy’s strength rests not on sheltering citizens from risky places but on cultivating informed, responsible individuals who engage with them. The default should be freedom to go, with government as advisor, not arbiter.