will we have guards keeping people out of the good neighbourhood because "they don't belong"?
There are exactly
zero forms of government and society from AnPrim to HyperCoporateCapitalism where this doesn't happen.
Sure, in theory complete freedom of movement exists in theory in some forms of gov't and society, but never in practice. The AnPrim needs to protect their food and shelter, and so will restrict access. The Communist needs to dole out what people need and no more from the stores, and so will restrict access. The Capitalist needs to give out product to those who pay for it to protect the value of the product, and so will restrict access.
There is no, in practice, or applied theoretical, form of government or society where you do not need to protect things, people, and places from those who don't belong or shouldn't have access.
Even in forms of gov't and society where they give a very full attempt at freedom of moment, you still need to track movement, otherwise someone somewhere will take advantage of it. Someone somewhere, as long as free will exists, will always take advantage of loopholes and laxity,
this is why we cannot have nice things. Because someone is an asshole. This is why so many ideological, theoretical forms of society will
always fail as written. Because someone is an asshole, and keeping them from being an asshole involves being a horrifically oppressive police state that gets ruined because the police become assholes.
Xianxia land is not any different, in fact the asshole-ish-ness is exacerbated by the power hierarchy inherent in existence.
I mean, let's take it to an extreme for showing a point. Your body is your property. If it isn't or if property is abolished, then a whole bunch of things fall apart, but that's another discussion. If your are say, an attractive, affable, and accomplished individual, your "neighborhood" is 'good' or 'high value.'
Should you, or should you not restrict access, should you or should not keep out people who don't belong? If you don't, then anyone can not only have access to certain parts of your body they can also treat your body however they want because you aren't restricting access for any reason. Even if you say only people who will be gentle are allowed access is still restricting access, and the whole freedom to access argument falls apart. Even if you do horrific things to control peoples attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and someone has a deviant moment and is punished in anyway shape or form for it, you've restricted access. Keeping people away for being sick or diseased, like during COVID-19 or a someone having a Cold not just STDs, is keeping people away for not belonging and restricting access.
So obviously, the answer to your question is 'yes, there will be barriers to accessing, and where it's inconvenient or unreasonable for other forms of barriers/deterrents there will be actual people guarding.' For a number of reasons that are actually very good and sensible. Like the very basic reason of 'the other person gets a vote' when it comes to things like theft, violence, and more. You might not be a giant asshole and steal things from people for funzies, but that doesn't mean I'm not. (I'm not, I think theft isn't worth the effort the vast majority of the time)
The real question you wanted to ask was: 'Are we going to be assholes about keeping people from areas, things, and people where they arguably don't belong or have a right to have access to?' Given the main CRX squad of LQ and GG? Not likely, unless there are too many assholes(Such as invaders, they are mega assholes), though some of the more peripheral people might.
veekie puts it pretty gently and lays out a number of other reasons why.
)
