From your article, "No armies are crossing our border." Go to southern Arizona, and then you will find out that your premise is flawed. Type "Mexican army in Arizona" into Google, and you will get over 1.2 million hits, mostly from April to June of 2014. Talk to AJAshinoff and his sister, and it will take a more personal slant.

Missed you the last couple of days on this post. Welcome back. Hope you guys are enjoying your trip.
Excellent description in this reply.

To really become comfortable with rights, one really needs to go to the source of rights, and concepts vs percepts. AR said that the source of all rights derive from man's right to his life (some define that as the first property right, i.e. that man owns himself) based on his nature, his identity (man Qua man), and that rights of man are morally positive while governments are negative.

Retaliatory force is only proper to the level of the others' level of force infringement. Individual rights cannot be denied without 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendment (Due Process).

What we have been discussing is whether removing the welfare state is enough. If you can also remove the crony state, then we're talking about a place worth living in. This is the first time in this argument that I had heard anyone other than myself discuss removing the cronyists. They provide the financing that makes the illegal immigration situation possible. They pay a few million to looters to look the other way, while they save tens of millions in wages, while leaving Joe Citizen to pay for the "public" services that those immigrants use but don't pay for. The only losers in this are taxpaying citizens.

Could you repeat that last line about 50 more times?
It won't help and you won't feel better but...
They're going to make you do it anyway, might as well get it over with. :)

Okay, but do nationalism and Objectivism necessarily conflict with each other? Ayn Rand often expressed patriotic sentiments and compared the United States favorably to all other countries. So when you say that "The two just don't mesh in any rational or logical manner," you are not accounting for Ayn Rand's views on the subject.

AJ, I would not support a Gulch that did not recognize the individual and natural rights of all men, excepting those that have demonstrated with their actions that they do not respect others' rights.

Nationalism: "noun
patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
• an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
• advocacy of political independence for a particular country.

Objectivism is egoistic, individualistic, man's rights derive from his right to life and are supreme to the rights of the group....

territorial integrity: Def. the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states. Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression.

sovereignty: Def. understood in jurisprudence as the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme authority over some polity.[1] It is a basic principle underlying the dominant Westphalian model of state foundation.

Westphalian Sovereignty: Def. In the Westphalian system, the national interests and goals of states (and later nation-states) were widely assumed to go beyond those of any citizen or any ruler.

The terms you use in the way you use them (i.e. immigration and control of human travel) are not Objectivist and aren't really related to immigration. They come from the Westphalian model in international law dating from the mid 1600's and define the concept of non-intervention by one nation/state into the internal affairs of another nation/state.

In order to apply those terms to immigration/emigration one must twist the definitions and concepts of all three. I think, of what I've read of Rand, that she well understood the correct definitions and proper relationships between all of them and used them within that understanding.

And I'll repeat one more time, no-one is or has advocated that private property trespass should not be enforced.

So what are you saying? That Asian people, who usually rate the most intelligent of races, are the only people who should live in the US? I don't think intelligence has anything to do with the goodness and principals of how people interact with one another.

but to your last point. that removing a welfare, crony state is not enough...hmmm
better to shave off a few more freedoms to get it just right

:-)

and I am agreeing with CG! Is the Mississippi flowing backwards? :)

what the heck does this have to do with the price of tea in China?!

serious derailment going on in this post

I am calling looters, cronyists, and moochers as locusts.

I agree with Zen's comments. I will add that there's nothing sacrosanct about intelligence. How productive you are can't be summed up in one number, except perhaps earnings from willing customers. We frequently see managers use their knowledge of customer needs, investors' mindsets, motivating a team, to hire engineers who are more intelligent than they are, yet the managers make more money because they put it together in a way that met paying customers' needs. Whatever we call that acumen to earn money from willing customers is more important than intelligence. And even this is not a figure of merit for humanity. If someone can't or just doesn't want to do paid work beyond what's needed to sustain them, there's nothing wrong with that. It's their life.

It's fine to study the distribution of intelligence level distribution among the races from an academic standpoint, but it does not have a practical application. If intelligence were critical to some job function or decision, it's much more effective to sit the individuals down for an IQ test than to go look at the distribution pattern of intelligence in their races.

I'll make one comment, but only to point you to a more Objectivist view of that information, then no more.

It is fact that the average IQ of women is higher than the average IQ of men.
It is fact that the measure of men's IQ is a flatter Bell Curve than is that of women.
Yet men produce 8 times the numbers of genius than do women and also a greater number of idiots.
A genius 'moocher' is still a 'moocher'.

SO WHAT

I have no idea what you are referring to. are you calling individuals locusts? I am lost

Soooooo glad you're back.

What you just accomplished in one paragraph. Nice

Thanks for the help earlier, too.

Ooh! Ooh! Pick me! Pick me! I did that.You have misrepresented what khalling said and you have been doing that ALL over this topic. I figured that was a good reason for a down-vote.

I would have said something but I figured you already knew all that.

Those are worthy long-term goals. What about the short term, while waiting for those goals to be achieved? If I call upon the government to defend my property from trespass, I don't think it's acceptable for the government to respond, "We'll get back to you after we have ended the war on drugs, the income tax, and welfare."

Capitalism in the world today is a failure because it is not capitalism. Capitalism truly is the unknown ideal.