Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 17
    Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
    I live in Phoenix, Arizona where illegal immigration has a huge impact of the state and life in general. I suggest and support 6 months+ imprisonment before deportation for repeat offenders or those caught committing crimes.

    Step on my property without my consent and you will be challenged and/or detained, if necessary. Step on my property at night without my consent, you will be challenged and theres a damn good chance you'll be taken away in an ambulance, wishing you were arrested.

    Thats my reality living in this border state. My family's safety is not trumped by anyone's individual "right to travel." My property is private.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years, 1 month ago
      I too live in Phoenix and have never felt unsafe due to illegal immigration, but I understand your psychological state may be different from mine. However, I should point out that your "suggest[ion]"
      is already the law. Unlawful re-entry after removal of an alien is indeed already a felony punishable by imprisonment of up to five years and a substantial fine. Many people so charged are also charged with a misdemeanor, unlawful entry, for the same act. The misdemeanor alone carries a penalty of up to 6 months (although that sentence is very rare for a first offense) and a potential fine (equally rare). I should also note that the vast majority of these defendants have gone nowhere near any private property. They are apprehended on government "owned" property in the desert. I hope this helps you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
        Yes, there are laws and they are selectively enforced..in fact, ICE has been known not to pickup illegals from Phoenix PD or the Sheriff's department. Further, there is a practice of catch and release when it comes to illegals.

        I am glad that you do not feel unsafe. I've lived in the same west valley neighborhood for 22-23 years and have seen and experienced much. And yes, illegals have entered my property, one was on my roof and another left a nice 8in carving knife on my rock front lawn about 6 feet from my bedroom window (cops did nothing, wouldn't even print it). Comforting.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by jabuttrick 4 years, 1 month ago
          I have been burglarized twice in the 39 years I've lived in Phoenix. I don't know anything about the citizenship of the burglars since they were never caught. The police came out and seemed to work hard to document the burglary but there was little they could do in the circumstances. That was disappointing but I certainly don't blame the immigration laws for it. As to the laws, they are strictly enforced at the border by the border patrol. Phoenix, as you know but others here may not, is well over a hundred miles from the border. The border patrol has no jurisdiction here. There are no doubt thousands of illegal aliens in the Phoenix area. Even if you find them, mere illegal presence is not sufficient to charge them with a felony. ICE merely begins the deportation process.Maybe this was the point you were making in your initial post. As to "catch and release" that is not the practice at the border, that's for sure. Dozens of arrests are made there daily for either the felony or misdemeanor offenses. The defendants are then processed and they almost always plead guilty to the misdemeanors. The felony defendants usually plead not guilty and hope to get a plea. They sometimes do, but often not. In any event, the system works pretty much the way you describe at the border.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
      Would seem that fences or other means to keep people off your property (dogs work also- I have two pit bulls and no one comes on my property without my approval !) would be more effective than anything else. Secondly, imprisonment only costs us money, so send the immigrants back right away. Thirdly, most of them just want to survive, so let them survive here if they want by giving them temp work permits, BUT NO FREEBIE CITIZENSHIP BENEFITS like welfare, schooling, medical care, section 8 housing etc. I would also remove minimum wage requirements to lessen their desire to just come to the USA and encourage them to get their own country's economies in order.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
        While the imprisonment I suggest does cost us money, I recommend it (on the second violation) because of the many people who get deported only to come back immediately. By removing the economic motivation, actual decent folks seeking to make a better life for themselves of their family, wouldn't risk depriving their families of 6 months income.

        The hope is that Mexico and other nations abusing our southern border would use their resources to provide legitimate documentation to help facilitate legal migration to the US to either work or eventually live. The hope is that dead bodies would stop being found in the Arizona desert. The hope is that crime would be reduced in Phoenix and other border States to the extent that the people of the US (Arizona) can move freely, with less concern of abuse, within their own land.

        I am in a middle class neighborhood, I am scarcely safe in my home or the local park 1/4 mile from my home. My children, particularly my daughter, have never gone to the park alone, without adult supervision.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by blackswan 4 years, 1 month ago
          Why should Mexico improve its system, if we're their safety valve?!? The only way those countries will improve is when their social problems pile up in their laps, not ours.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
          I live in Las Vegas, which doesnt have the same issues, so I havent experienced quite the same things as you have. If we allowed for work permits, but didnt require minimum wages be paid, it might encourage a slightly higher class of immigrants and no need to sneak across the border
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
            There are worker programs, particularly in areas nearest Mexico for seasonal labor. However, there are federal parks in Penal county where signs are posted telling American citizens not to go there for fear of the Mexican drug cartels who have established footholds in our parks.

            http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/18/...

            its this commonplace, and this bad http://media.economist.com/sites/defa...

            I'm truly happy that LV is less saturated by illegals (sincerely, no sarcasm), but that in no way diminishes the severe problem we have here AND the complicit federal governments active attempts to stop us from resisting. Literally American citizens are dying on a daily basis at the hands of those who shouldn't be here.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
              WE should remove the illegality of drugs from US laws. That would put the cartels out of business pretty much overnight, and stop the violence that you fear.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                Fallacy. Medical Marijuana, my mom is on it, cost 200x the street amount in addition to a hefty permit fee. She buys it using her health care. The black market is still thriving enough that hundreds of kilo's are confiscated daily as they come into Phoenix. The "problem" will only take a new form, it will never go away. Besides, the last thing this country needs is more dumbed down and complacent voting base (my opinion), some who will require medical intervention for detoxification and overdoses.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  winterwind 4 years, 1 month ago
                  AJA, who pays for that medical intervention? edited to make sure to address the correct post.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                    of course subsidized tax dollars, Ocare (or some rendition) or defaulting on the bill...thats my point.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  winterwind 4 years, 1 month ago
                      really? I thought when one said "besides..." one was saying something beside the point. I thought we were talking about breaking the power of the Mexican Drug Cartels.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                        I disagree with drug use outside of medicine entirely. I grew up in a house of 60's flower children...its not worth it. If drugs become legal, fine. But I don't want any responsibility, even through taxes, in paying for their choices AND I don't want to listen to anything about their "troubles" when (not if) the sh*t hits the fan and their health is in the toilet.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
                  At least in Las Vegas, most of the teachers in our illustrious school district smoke pot. The dealers offer home delivery too. Making it illegal just increases the cost and invites crime and cartels. Its the same as prohibition in the 30's. We shouldnt and in fact cant legistate what people put into their own bodies. Whether we like it or not.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
                    What we need is an Amsterdam zone. A sort of free zone. hell all the high schools and most of the middle schools are pharmacies now and the teachers are the cartels. no wonder they didn't evacuate that school in Houston.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
                      the drugs have a lot of downsides, like they ruin your chances of a good and productive life over time. People need to see the bad effects before they will stop using them. Buy the drugs at walmart, safe and secure and low priced and I think we would all be better off. No war on drugs, no infringement on rights due to the DEA, no cartels, and no need to rob people to pay for the drugs. Sounds like win win to me.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Until the tax starts then like tobacco and alcohol the black market starts. I can just see a network of old retired people whose retirement money got kicked in the donkey. They all get together and turn things around for themselves as a Grey Goose Cartel. RV types do the muling. And in between rows of legal pot they plant tobacco while Grammoll is making home brew in the kitchen and Grumpy is turning wine into fine brandy. Imagine dealing under the operating table with the surgeon. I can make it worth your while if I can pay in off the books cash or a couple cases of twenty buck chuck.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
              That's old news. Decades ago the owl lovers were protecting the growops in southern oregon and northern california using terrorist tactics. They got the information on how to make the booby traps and other devices right out of the book that Carter declassified not that it was any great secret . Tree spiking was a new on though. Then they started planting on other peoples property and guess how much law enforcement helped there except to arrest the so called property owner.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      Yes and I advocate that all men over 50 be put to death so we can save on Social Security? Logic please.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
        Logic. You enter my property without my consent and I have no way of knowing if you are a danger to me and mine, particularly at night. Should my query as to why you are here not meet my satisfaction you will be asked to leave. If you so desire to object to that command I will expel you, forcefully if need be. Wouldn't you do the same?

        Who's not rationally thinking on this matter? Who is not using logic here?

        Again, I would not come to your home, pitch a tent in your yard and use your hose, electric outlet and BBQ without first asking AND receiving your permission. My inherent right to travel DOES NOT extend into places owned by someone else (in this example you).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
          Additionally: By placing an illegal alien in holding for 6 month for a repeated offense before deporting you take away the potential income he/she will be sending home. The risk of being caught and losing 6 months of income would serve to discourage repeat offenders AND allow us to track those entering our country illegally. Those who commit serious crimes should be imprisoned longer with bonus years added for not being here legally, then they get deported.

          Logical.

          PS

          I have 12 more months before your Carousel.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
          As I explained your property rights are not unlimited. If you shot someone for just stepping on your property, with no clear intent to hurt you, then you are the criminal.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
            You're putting words in my mouth. As I said, I would challenge that person and if he/she chose not to obey I would remove them from my property.If his/her expulsion became an issue where me or my family felt threatened, yes I would use lethal force and even take a life if it had to be.

            I never said I would shoot or harm someone for simply stepping on my property.

            Would you do any less?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
              Okay, but that has nothing to do with the right to travel freely.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
                Private property has everything to do with the right to travel freely.

                From the first time someone made a rock wall to sleep behind, or pitched a tent, or turned some ground to plant, the right to travel freely was restricted. Unless you advocate open borders and one world governance and are you yourself are a collectivist, your (Rand's?) right to travel freely simply cannot exist anymore because of individual private property and national boundaries. To deny fact of reality is disingenuous and irrational.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
                  No you did not read the article and you do not understand property rights in land, which was the whole point of the post.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
                    I apologize, you are right I haven't read the article (not sure how I missed it). I will now and be honest in my appraisal.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • 13
                      Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 2 months ago
                      I read the article and while I better understand where you're coming from I still contend that you, the author, Locke and Rand are wrong. The moment anyone stakes a claim they have limited someone else's ability to travel freely - this is not wrong. To say that it is puts everyone else's rights over my own. A national border is a claim by the people of nation AND it is legitimate for that people's government to regulate who comes into the country do not cause foreseeable harm and ensure those who enter legally don't overstay their welcome. Severn billion peoples individual right to travel can kiss my ass when it comes to my land, my house, and anything of mine.

                      Scenario:
                      1000 people find the Gulch. They make camp on the fringe and build. Soon their population grows, they trade with the Gulches,they expand taking more land, and their customs, culture and ideology begin to present themselves in the Gulch's youth. In time their numbers swell to the point where there is no physical buffer, they do their business and govern their lives. Soon rules are made by that group and they insist on their part of the gulch things are done their way and the people of the Gulch find their kids sympathetic and even favoring this different way.

                      Without some degree of filtering/restricting/determining who enters the Gulch loses its ideology in one or two generations simply by population saturation.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Just a clarification here, but I would advise that readers change over to Eudamonia's postings citing Rand's specific words on the subject before attempting to assert that Rand advocated for open borders.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
                          Easilysolved by enacting self limiting benevolent dictator ship with everyone taking a final turn. Oldest first. Serve until death, next oldest takes over. I thought about unable to perform duties but that may be a plus feature. why the dictator part. So people would have what they are used to. dealing with. Less trauma.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Concrete examples of AJ's hypothetical example have occurred in numerous cities throughout Europe and some in America (such as Dearborn, MI) with regard to Muslim populations. I have a large number of Muslim friends (> 1000), probably more than anyone in the Gulch, who will be celebrating Eid tomorrow. Their religious text has specific instructions with regard to how to do precisely what AJ suggested.

                        As for rules being made by that group and they insist on things being done their way, I am expected by my university to have a special class for the 20 Muslim students (out of 120 total students in the class) on Friday to make up the content that students will miss on Thursday for their religious holiday. I am willing to do so, because both my university and the Muslim students (and their they pay me quite well.

                        The loss of ideology by population saturation will happen in less time even than AJ thinks.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Provide a logical argument of you you can be free, but told where you can travel - you can't because it is impossible.

                        But you know what shows your true colors is that you ignore a pro-freedom solution.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                          "Provide a logical argument of you you can be free, but told where you can travel - you can't because it is impossible."

                          This makes no sense.

                          A river flows freely wherever gravity takes it, except in those places where stones jut up to adjust its path - this is private property in this world.

                          I'm not alone. Nine other people see flaws in your argument.

                          I don't advocate kumbaya. I also don't "hope" or trust that other people with think as I do or come to think as I do. You're solution depends on mutual respect, which is a very rare thing in numbers. The only way your solution can work today is to eliminate private ownership of anything and erase state and country lines - any lines of ownership (Wyatt would be proud).

                          I do not advocate single world governance nor do I represent a nomadic, tribal, or herd mentality in the 21st century.

                          Apparently, on this matter we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot subscribe your purely philosophical point and you refuse to appreciate reality by calling me a collectivist.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
                            Remember the three types. The Righteous, The Debaters and those who seek to find and apply an acceptable practical answer to the problem whatever it is. the rest will be sitting by the wayside babbling when the train comes down the track.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                              I don't mind discussing just about anything with anyone, I can always learn something. I draw the line when someone I respected starts dismissing what I say offhand by question my ability comprehend, to think, and to rationally look at a subject. Nothing I stated was "emoting", there was no sense in continuing to talk with such a set and inflexible mind.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
                                Of course. You are in the third group. Best decision is Rand's quote on 'walking away.' Even when third group people go at it it's with good will and a desire to do something. You and I and others would simply recognize the problem and get off the tracks.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 2 months ago
        Precedent and incrementalism. First you bring the subject up but blame it on the other side.

        Then you devalue the retirement income of the elderly by oh let's say thirty percent.

        Then you screw with the medical benefits under the guise of helping them and make it illegal to buy over the border.

        Legalize assisted suicide which considering the prohibitive cost of assisted care and the conditions I've witnessed is becoming better looking all the time as compared to the cruel but not unusual punishment waiting people in their last four or five years.

        Next comes making it illegal to work at WalMart unless you are in the retail clerks union.

        I'm again only half jesting. The .first four are real events. The last one is a work in progress

        The only thing I can't refute is 'logic.' When it happens look for the out the escape hatch. It wil lbe their labeled Presidents, Congress and Friends only.

        No logic to it especially the part about supporting them
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
          Holy shit!
          You're scaring me.
          Mama Nature will end me soon enough without any help. I do, however, have the benefit of having enough $$ so as to not burden anyone. Everything is paid for, including house and 10 year old mini van.
          Half jesting? Which half should I be afraid of?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
    I'm amazed the numbers of anti-Objectivist and anti-freedom members that are being brought out by these discussions and posts on immigration and property rights. Individual freedom (including the right to travel) and property rights for all men are core principles of Objectivism as well as Locke's work that went into the founding documents of this country.

    I see a lot of Pragmatism and Relativism and near Fascist Nationalism of the conservative type, in many of the comments as well as a lot of mis-understanding (maybe outright mis-statement) of Ayn Rand's thoughts. There's also much misdirected anger against the immigrant---not against those government actors that have bastardized our institutions to such an extent through government programs, non-prosecution, stupid and ignorant drug policies and wars, and outright scare mongering where the anger should be aimed.

    Take a step back and review the principles of Objectivism and you will find solutions to your anger. While you're at that also do a little review of Hitler's promises to the German people if they'd just let him handle the Jewish, Gypsy, and mentally and physically deformed and weak problems. Germany would then be a country of prosperity and success again. Compare those promises to Trump's if we'll just let him handle the immigrant problem.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
      Right on Zen! I am one of the silent ones because I am still getting my bearings on this issue. I strongly lean toward db which, to me, represent freedom and liberty and objectivist core values. I do, however, understand the fear some of us have watching our country turned into a welfare state by taking care of all of these illegals. But the answer is never getting rid of our freedoms. It is getting rid of the welfare state. Just my two cents.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
        Indeed. Any argument or action taken to infringe on someone else's freedoms can only lead to infringement on everyone's freedom. All men are free, or none are.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
          Somehow I missed this comment before. Or maybe I saw it but it didn't register.
          " All men are free, or none are." This is the basic idea that I had to keep inserting into my thought path to get this straight.
          ++++++ Well, all you get is the 1. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
        there is the most easy of opportunities politically for the Republican candidates to take this issue head on by stating -it's NOT border control (per se), this is about the Welfare State, flawed immigration policies and world economic decline due to out of control government spending, regulation and corruption. oh, and DRUG WARS that the US insists on waging to no avail.
        Politically, you are pandering to a declining demographic (Trump).
        this was a political comment, not a philosophical one, which I have made already on other posts. Stridently, I admit-for MY freedoms are being discussed as limiting in the anti-immigration discussions, so I take this issue VERY personally.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -1
        Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
        Yes, welfare (not to mention drug criminalization) exacerbates the open border disaster, but if we ended welfare etc. then open borders would still be a disaster. The “Milton Friedman argument” assumes a “libertarian” – I use the term loosely – nation could let in massive numbers from India, or whatever country steeped in Asian or African culture, and the country would not go down the tubes.

        Restricting immigrants to those from Europe (originally from Europe, not those using Europe as a way station between Iraq or wherever and the U.S.) is not getting rid of our freedom and will help preserve it. A citizen has the right to leave and return, a foreigner does not have the right to enter. Not if a nation means anything.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
          I think the problem is not letting foreigners in or that we will get a coherent nation by letting only Europeans in. History is full of Europeans clashing.

          The United States is relatively rare in the history of the world because of the wide variety of people who make up the country,at least initially for the most part people coming to make a new life for themselves to where they could own property and start their own business.

          Leaving aside, for the moment, the philosophical argument that has been raging with so much rancor, from a practical view our current immigration policy is horrific from the point of view of building the nation.

          Legal immigration is very difficult. It's hard to move here if you are skilled, if you have money, if you are in most of the world. The legal path is tortuous. Yet we have lots of immigration but it tends to be from specific spots and by people who are willing to break the law to come here.

          If you want to do the E Pluribus Unum thing, you need to have a wide variety of different ethnic groups. Too many from one ethic group encourages that group to try to turn this into "the old country". I lived for a while in a Polish section of Chicago. This is not limited to 'brown' people.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
          That is so racist a statement as to be scary. Please take that kind of irrational thinking somewhere else.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • -4
            Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
            I referred to culture, however in connection with immigration we have good reason to talk about race too.

            For example, if intelligence is correlated (not necessarily welded) with race – as Hernstein and Murray claim to prove in The Bell Curve – then letting in masses of race X, that has a lower average intelligence than currently exists in a country, will lower the average intelligence of the country.

            Does average intelligence affect the culture of a country?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
              To be fair to Hernstein and Murray, they were not particularly talking about race, they mentioned it in passing. They were talking about the trend beginning in the 60s of aggressively pulling together the bright people into college -- which previously was more of a class structure. That the concentration and separation of people by intelligence would have a profound impact on the culture.

              I will admit I found the racial graphs quite depressing.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -4
              Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
              To those who voted down my post above, would you care to defend any of the three propositions:

              ... Average intelligence does not affect a country.

              ... All races on average possess the same intelligence.

              ... If either of the above propositions is false, it is evil of you to say so out loud.

              Even asking “is there a correlation between whatever and race” is politically correct. Moving to a white neighborhood is the cultural leftist version of Original Sin.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                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
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -4
                  Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
                  Zenphamy: Though it’s irrelevant to my point, the average IQ of males exceeds that of females. It’s true that the variance in male IQ exceeds that in females, so you get more men at either extreme.

                  Since you brought up sex difference it’s up to you to answer the rhetorical question concluding your post. My answer is:

                  If the US consisted of nothing but females – a rather extreme case – the culture would be different from today, which only helps my point.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 1 month ago
                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -4
                  Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
                  CircuitGuy: Referring to the study of “the distribution of intelligence level distribution among the races from an academic standpoint” you say “it does not have a practical application.” Is your position, then, the following:

                  The US can let in masses of race X having a lower than US average intelligence, and even though that will result in a lower US average intelligence it will have no affect on US politics, culture, and way of life?

                  Note that intelligence is just one attribute. There are various other attributes that correlate with race.

                  If you bring in masses of whatever group having an average of whatever attribute, the country will change towards that average. This is not controversial, it’s grade school arithmetic.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 years, 1 month ago
                    "The US can let in masses of race X having a lower than US average intelligence, and even though that will result in a lower US average intelligence it will have no affect on US politics, culture, and way of life?"
                    Everything that happens has some effect. Politics, culture, and way of life are always changing. So I won't say no effect to anything.

                    Should intelligence be a criterion to reside in the US?
                    I say no.
                    Should we consider the average attributes of people's identity groups?
                    Hell no. Test the individuals' attributes.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  sjatkins 4 years, 1 month ago
      Do you think your belittling name calling is an example of Objectivist thought? Express a cogent argument beyond hand waving begging the question. But do not insult others in doing so or conflate one position with others needlessly.

      Trump has no more to do with the core question than Hitler does.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
        So you feel insulted and belittled by my general comment made to the post----Aaaahh. As to your desire to play Miss Manner's and rule the debate, I don't remember your appointment as moderator or Post Police.

        If you have a counter to anything within my comment, please reply. You might wish to check the FAQ's of the site just to refresh before you do so. Some that apply to this little comment of yours:

        General Etiquette:
        "Debate is fine, but remember this site is specifically for supporters of Ayn Rand's ideas. If you don't support Ayn Rand's ideas, you're in the wrong place." (emphasis added)

        Under Don'ts:
        "Wage personal attacks or chastise other Gulch members. Ad hominem and/or "flaming" is not permitted."
        "Assume the role of an Admin and attempt to discipline other Gulch members."


        The core question of this particular post is 'Whether private property rights support exclusionary immigration and should this country exclude immigrants'. The poster has laid out an argument that the idea of Private Property being used as a justification of exclusionary immigration is flawed. Additionally, that immigration exclusions are not Objectivist. The latter supported by direct quotation from Ayn Rand.

        When faced with those replies, several commenters have provided additional arguments of Pragmatism, Relativism, and Fascist Nationalism rather than counters from Ayn Rand or Objectivist thought. Pointing that out is not 'name calling' nor 'belittlement'. And such immigration arguments, as those made by Trump in the last couple of months are disturbingly similar to arguments made to the German people by Hitler in 1930.

        My suggestion to those commenters, was to, "Take a step back and review the principles of Objectivism and you will find solutions to your anger." I find nothing within any of that to apologize for.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
      The question goes begging: Does a foreigner to the U.S. have a right to enter the U.S.? To answer that we need to know what a country, a nation, is. All that Rand published on the subject seems to be in her essay “Collectivized Rights,” which is quoted in ARIwatch.com/AynRandOnImmigration.htm

      “A free nation – a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens – has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation ... has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).”
      And
      “Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.”

      Unfortunately she didn’t say what she meant by territorial integrity and sovereignty. And she didn’t address the problem posed by a mass influx of migrants from the Third World. (For most of her life in the U.S. there was very little immigration and what there was came from Europe.)

      I can’t believe she would tell historic Americans to passively accept this invasion, and I use the word invasion advisedly. What is happening is conquest by occupation. Look at California politics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
        Ayn Rand, as did the Founders of America, believed in, through logic and rational thought, that all men are individually free with all that means, and that includes the right to travel and the right to relocate for their individual benefit.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
          Certainly the Founders didn’t believe in open immigration. Read for example John Jay in the Federalist Papers. I won’t quote it because I don’t know how politically correct this forum is.

          As for Ayn Rand, I won’t presume to say what her thoughtful, considered position on open immigration was. She published nothing on the subject. I reject considering her unprepared, impromptu answers to questions as always a correct application of her philosophy. Even a genius makes mistakes. You have to think for yourself. You must think for yourself even about what she published.

          Rational thought must be applied to a comprehensive observation of the relevant real world, otherwise rational thought withers to rationalism. I look at what open immigration is doing to my country and rational thought leads me to conclude it is suicidal.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
            Personally, I could care less about political correctness and most of the Objectivists I know express much the same. While you may question ARI, cherry picking AR's writings and excluding her extemporaneous statements directly on point are not acceptable to me and is the height of sophistry and hubris.

            It appears that your referenced site includes those that directly challenge her and discredit her direct statements in apparent effort to support more conservative Nationalism, Pragmatism, and Relativism than those that study her reasoning, metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and philosophy.

            I seldom if ever quote AR directly. I prefer to apply my own reasoning power rather than just regurgitate what she said, but her reply to a questioner quoted on your referenced site, addressing the exact topic of this post is meaningful:

            “I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim.You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended."

            It strikes me that all free men would better serve their self interest through ridding our government of the collectivist and statist programs that are the true causes of this country's difficulties.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • 11
              Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
              And that is why Ayn Rand rejected the 'job protectionist' anti-immigrationists, who now package-deal immigrants with an invasion taking over the country. She properly supported the right of normal, decent people to immigrate and make a better life for themselves, not mass illiterates coming for welfare and voting to further collectivize the country as they are invited by Obama to do.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  JCLanier 4 years, 1 month ago
                ewv: While I have been following closely this thread and the preceding one on "property rights", your comment here I find appropriate as it is stated with relation to and in proportion to the current reality of our times. That has, sorely, been missing from many comments on these two topics.
                Edited for spelling
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
                  "the current reality of our times" does not change anything. It is not property rights that is the problem, it is giving welfare to anyone and everyone that has changed. That is the problem, in my opinion. .
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  JCLanier 4 years, 1 month ago
                    ycandrea: that is exactly what I said, it should be current to the reality of our times and you confirm that by stating- "... it is giving welfare to anyone and everyone that has changed... and is the problem" Yes, changed to what we currently have multiplied, over time, to egregious, unsustainable levels! To be clear in this respect and respond to your counter-comment I no way limited my comment to only property rights. The comments in this thread also reference immigration and it is therefore relevant that welfare and all other subsidies come into play when applied to immigrants. I hope this clarifies my previous comment.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • -1
                Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
                Ayn Rand made no qualifications. She said that we may not restrict immigration, and that was her entire conclusion. She did not restrict immigration to normal or decent or literate or a small number or anything else.

                Were she to have elaborated she might have placed some restrictions, but she did not elaborate. She came here in 1926. Did she approve of the Immigration Act of 1924? Did she disapprove of the Immigration Act of 1965 that rescinded it? Or what? Her Q&A sounds like a definite No, a definite Yes, but we cannot know.

                Personally I would want her answers to be a definite Yes, a definite No. Because unrestricted immigration eventually leads to the end of capitalism, of freedom, of the recognition of individual rights in the target nation.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                  She gave a definite answer to the question she was asked at the Ford Hall Forum in 1973 about restricting immigration for government economic protectionism. She rejected it. She did not endorse or discuss an "invasion" in the name of immigration encouraged to come for welfare and take over the country, which was not the immigration controversy at the time. They are two different issues.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
              WOW Zen! Sounds so very, very logical to me! (sniff). I'm sorry, but I get emotional when I see something so right, so logical, so comfortingly clear. It goes right to my brain and my heart. I knew I was right but couldn't put it into words like this!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                Txs. It can become very disheartening to continually encounter anti-freedom and anti-Objectivist arguments on this site. But I'll note that one of the things that's always kept me involved in Objectivist thought is that once understood, it is as you say, "so right, so logical, so comfortingly clear".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -3
                  Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
                  We should be against immigration anarchy and for an immigration moratorium like the one we had between 1924 and 1968, a facet of American history that immigration enthusiasts ignore.

                  We should be for Objectivism, not every single utterance of its fallible developer.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • -2
                    Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
                    To cure immigration anarchy I recommended a reinstatement of the Immigration Act of 1924, which was rescinded in 1968 during the Silly Sixties (by an Act passed in 1965). We had only a trivial amount of immigration for forty years.

                    Then I said we should be for Objectivism instead of for every single utterance of its developer. She made a mistake sometimes and you must think for yourself.

                    Then Zenphamy plays on my word “utterance” and says “What utter nonsense.” even though it is sensible to look at Rand’s whole work and organize it into a consistent body of thought. Instead some people pick out a sentence from one of Rand’s question and answer periods and use it to flood America with the Third World.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
            Ayn Rand explicitly favored immigration, citing in particular what would have happened to her if she could not have immigrated. She was opposed to arbitrary quotas and did not on the grounds of "jobs protectionism" want to keep people out who were willing to work. She did not, however, use the phrase "open borders". She was not an anarchist. When she publicly discussed this there was not yet the controversy over the kind of problems we have today with international terrorists, welfare immigration, and a political strategy of importing illiterates to culturally and politically take over the country and destroy what is left of capitalism. She knew the difference between immigration and invasion.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -4
              Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
              Rand explicitly endorsed open immigration, four decades ago, in an unprepared answer to a question, after a lecture unrelated to immigration. This verbal utterance should be ranked lower in value than her opinion of a woman president, cigarettes, and the artwork of Maxfield Parrish. Rand’s philosophy does not consist of every little thing she uttered or even published. That’s the point of http://ARIwatch.com/AynRandOnImmigrat... already cited.

              In that 1973 Q&A about immigration, uncorroborated by anything she published, she misapplied her own philosophy. It is precisely her ethics of rational self-interest, together with the nature of culture, that should make us oppose open immigration.

              Forget California if you want, look at what’s happening in Europe. It’s Camp of the Saints come to life. Tell me this is an application of Rand’s philosophy!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                The strained polemics at the hostile "ariwatch" trying to make a case for the opposite of her views on immigration are irrelevant. This is not the place to try to put over "ariwatch" as a basis for what Ayn Rand thought and meant.

                I know what she said. She was responding to a question on limiting immigration on the grounds of "self interest" against economic competition from foreigners, which she rejected. She did not use the term "open borders", did not endorse anyone wandering across the border at any time for any motive, and was not talking about today's political situation of importing welfare illiterates for Obama's agenda of "fundamental change" of American culture, let alone endorsing it.

                I saw and heard her explain it. It was during the question period at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston. It was not a mere "verbal utterance". She was never "unprepared" to explain her ideas. She was was not groping for an "unprepared" answer in an "off the cuff" response. It was not the first time she had ever thought about the question of immigration. She was not "confused", let alone "beyond confused". She did not answer as an "isolated snap remark" "under time pressure", and it was not a "hostile audience" -- It was an extremely friendly and supportive audience, overflowing the hall after waiting on line for hours and which attended year after year. She knew what she was talking about, answered immediately, and meant it. The bozo at "ariwatch" does not know what he is talking about but his motives and methods are obvious.

                The usual "ARIwatch" snide polemics are trying to dismiss what she said while posturing as an objective account. They are laced with the author's own interpretations and speculations interleaved with rambling side stories all trying to make a "case" that her statements were ill considered and "pernicious" and not really what she would think if she "correctly" applied her own principles. The polemics at "ariwatch" are not a credible source. Please do not try to foist them on us here again.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -2
                  Posted by MarkHunter 4 years, 1 month ago
                  We all can know what Ayn Rand said during the Ford Hall Forum 1973 Q&A. The article I linked to contains an exact verbatim quote, much better than the paraphrase in Ayn Rand Answers, and you can listen to a recording of it on the Ayn Rand Institute’s website.

                  Rand used the term “open immigration” and said we had no right to “close the border” and “no right to bar others” in order to raise our standard of living, assuming it would. She said, by asking a rhetorical question, that “immigration should [never] be restricted.” See the full quote for why inserting “never” is the right word to make the question into a statement.

                  To argue that Ayn Rand said it therefore it is true, that way madness lies. The ARIwatch article gives a few examples that probably everyone here would have misgivings about. To repeat, even a genius is not infallible.

                  Doubtless Rand herself would tell you to think for yourself, not follow her over a cliff like a robot.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                    You and the "ariwatch" polemic you appeal to are distorting what Ayn Rand said and why in answer to the specific question. No one as hargued "Ayn Rand said it therefore it is true", that is your own polemical madness. The reasons she gave for her answer were clear.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
            What we have is not open immigration. Suggesting that it is and condemning it as such is at best an error, and more likely intentionally deceitful. Either way, rational thought has nothing to do with it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 2 months ago
    "Private property rights can never be used to imprison people."

    This reminds me of anti-private property rights arguments I used to hear claiming that property rights allows someone to "buy up a 1 inch strip of land around you to imprison you." It makes no more sense than claiming that someone could drop a steel cage over you to imprison you and you have no right to get out because he owns the cage. Or, someone could get away with shooting you because he owns the bullets.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 2 months ago
      Hear hear
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
        Ironically -- and inevitably -- it is the statists who are in practice doing the imprisonment under the excuse of land ownership to prevent access. "Landlocking" is generally supposed to be prohibited, yet they engage in it themselves. In a notorious case in Castine, Maine, a man bought water front property coveted by the Maine Coast Heritage Trust, a wealthy viro land trust started and funded with Rockefeller money and with the usual undue influence over government. The land was surrounded on three sides by Trust land and had traditional access across it via a road dating well before the Trust bought the surrounding land. The Trust shut off the access and convinced a sympathetic court to allow it because the inholding faced the water for "access" -- not only was the "access" restricted to the water, the waterfront side of the land faced a high, steep rock cliff down to the water, making it completely inaccessible.

        The Trust subsequently tried to force the new owner to surrender remaining property rights by organizing a "protest" by radical activists staging a "mass trespass" to politically impose a "public right" to an oceanfront trail (copying political techniques previously used in England to seize land rights in the name of the "public"). One of the activists slipped and bragged to a reporter that the Trust had organized it, which the otherwise sympathetic reporter included in the article, not realizing that the Trust tries to create an impression of non-involvement under a good-cop bad-cop scheme.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
      I have two pit bulls (friendly actually, but look menacing). I have NO problems with people coming uninvited onto my property. $20 a month in food fixes the problem. I agree with you that imprisonment isnt reasonable, or even practical, for an incursion onto my property.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by nicktheitguy 4 years, 1 month ago
    DB, I live in Tucson, AZ...in the illustrious 100 mile zone that the feds ignore the Constitution. I have some good friends on the Border Patrol, and I can tell you for a fact that you are incorrect in this statement, "No armies are crossing our border.". Armed federalies commonly cross the border, and when they are stopped, they claim that they did not realize they were on the U.S. side. S.O.P. dictates that they are returned to Mexico, with their firearms. Now, maybe they are just lost...maybe G.P.S. does not work at the border, or maybe they are escorting in illegals, drugs, etc.
    Growing up in Chicago, I knew nothing about what went on down here, until I moved here. There is a constant flow of people, drugs, weapons, sex slaves, and other bad things flowing across the border.
    I firmly believe that we are a country, not a charity. We should have sovereign borders and they should be protected.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
      As I recall the Supreme Court pulled that 100 mile abililty last week or the week before. Along with a couple of second amendment decisions. The subject of a thread topic no one read. Living south of you on the other side the golden rule is never live within fifty miles of the border. I'll see if i can dig up those Court cites.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
        My partial but still inexcusable mistake it wasn't The Court but a three Judge panel at the circuit court level on the second amendment decisions which extended the 2008 and recent decisions on the carry laws in Heller vs. DC in favor of Heller Still it came out in our favor.

        On the 100 mile exclusion of the Constitution which affects 2/3rds of the country (Borders and coastlines) they turned down a DOHS bid to broaden their powers. Another small step for mankind.

        The 100 mile from the border or coastline means every major city except what Chicago and St. , Minneapolis, St. Paul, Denver and St. Louis? has the partial suspension of the Constitution in effect. Discussed elsewhere in another post in more detail.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
    Here is an island nation, call it Islandia ( http://www.professorsopportunities.co... ). Its land is owned by three people: A, B, and C. Its two roads, shown in red, are owned by the people whose land they cross, but maintained by the government of Islandia. They are toll roads, and anyone who is not a landowner and desires to use a road must pay.

    I maintain that Islandia can deny access to anyone they want, and noone can set foot on their land without the permission of the land owner.

    People, therefore, are not free to travel: they may not travel in Islandia for free.

    But noone is being imprisoned by Islandia. And Islandia is not keeping two people from meeting - they can meet by simply traveling via water, or they can pay the toll and use the roads.

    Now how does this differ if the size of a nation is increased, or the number of its property owners, or the number of roads?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
      I don't see a problem with a reasonable toll based on cost of upkeep.
      By the way, who owns the waterfront. It changes several times a day.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
        I am only interested in this hypothetical island from the point of view of understanding the right to private property. So the toll is not material to the question. The waterfront, from the high tide line down, would be owned by noone - just like the ocean itself.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
          There are no free lunches. Privately or jointly owned toll roads have been a part of this country since before it's founding, and many libertarians maintain should be even today. A limited land area such as Islandia, owned by only 3 people as you propose, I suppose can do anything they wish. But if they espouse the ideals of Objectivism and freedom for all, they would likely establish a trading port for obtaining and selling and shipping their excess production and maybe provide for vacationers and tourists for fees. They could own all of that and direct hire personnel to run it, work it, etc. Or they might well sell lots to operators.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
            You are straying from the purpose of my original comment. I don't care about the tolls, or what the property owners are doing with their property. I am trying to grasp the meaning of what is meant by private property.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
              Private property simply means that you have the right of control of your property and what happens on it as long as you don't cause harm to another's property with your actions, i.e. db's pig farm on the boundary with a neighbor, adjusting drainage to flood a neighbor, a hazardous smoke or vapor plume into your neighbor's property, etc. You have the right to protect your property from damage, i.e. stop trespass with force equivalent to the tort, a neighbor's tree limbs growing into your roof. You have the right to sell or transfer your property to another. You have the right to rent your property. Common sense.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
                Thank you. Then apparently, you agree that A, B, and C have the right to do what they are doing - namely to prevent others from trespassing on their property. Now, why cannot this same system be applied on a much larger scale - e.g.- the United States.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                  Individually, they may prevent trespass on their individual properties. They can operate as socialists and statists between each other if they want, but they are not a nation/state nor does their island include any non-owned (public) land. They have toll roads so they can't prevent others from meeting on the road, if they pay their toll, nor prevent others from meeting below the high tide line at the edges of their properties.

                  But if they are Objectivist or believe in freedom, they're going to have difficulties establishing trade or interactions with others or asking others to let them visit them.

                  Of course they'll also meet a little difficulty with shipwreck victims.

                  So, no I don't agree with what you're attempting to establish through an overly simplistic example.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
                  No you cannot keep me from meeting with and trading with any other free person. As clearly explained in the article and a government is not a private individual.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
                    I am not keeping you from meeting or trading with anyone - just ask the person for permission to visit his property. Then if he wants to meet or trade with you, he will allow you to enter. And I never said the government is an individual!
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -3
      Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      You clearly do not understand property rights or freedom. But what is really amazing is that I have shown a pro-freedom solution to immigration, but you ignore it. We now know where you stand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
        The reason that I proposed this hypothetical nation was to reduce things to their simplest form, because your essay is much too difficult for me to clearly understand. I was a teacher for over 25 years, and that is what I used to do to explain complex ideas to my students. You, on the other hand, seem to revel in being obtuse. Your reply is a mastery of obfuscation. Telling me that I don't understand is of no help to me at all. If my example is wrong, please tell me what exactly is wrong with it!
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 4 years, 1 month ago
    The argument is good but I do have some unease, here goes-

    Starting from the concept of property rights is correct. Then, it is necessary to put the question, Who owns the thoroughfare? The answer is- the people, the nation, the citizens. The owner has delegated management to an agency - the government. That agency has fiduciary duty as it is impractical for the owners to take on the management. The agency may legitimately restrict access (of non-owners) if that decision has the ok of the owners. Such restriction does not need to be defended to any outsider, it derives from property rights, it only needs acceptance from the owners.

    " This argument shows a flawed understanding of property rights. You obtain property rights in something because you made it productive or created it. "
    Yes, but this is not a full definition unless inheritance is denied. The thoroughfare is owned by citizens who have ownership by a process akin to inheritance.
    Much the same conclusion would be reached by defining the owner as government with government in turn being owned by the citizens.
    A logical way you could disagree would be by legitimizing government having more power than most Objectivists would allow- by banning discrimination on grounds the political class de jour does not want. This detracts from property rights.
    Or, you could propose that every living person everywhere has an equal share in ownership of all land not privately owned, I wouldn't.

    " the gulch is private property and that private property did not limit anyone’s ability to travel freely."
    To my reading, the border protection fence was quite effective in keeping people out. Technology that can not be seen beats fences and guards.
    Wrt getting out once in, you could argue about Dagny being a prisoner or not.

    What I really like about dbh's paper is what I call a timetable, it starts from "There is a principled solution .."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jsw225 4 years, 1 month ago
    What drivel. An overflowing stack of non-sequiturs and straw-men attacks to derive a hilariously bad conclusion that those who want everyone to equally play by the rules are xenophobic and hate freedom. God damned laughable.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
      The discussion is fundamentally about what the rules should be and what they should be based on. "Equally playing by rules" no matter what they are is not the starting point.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 years, 1 month ago
    There is a free road to travel across our border...they are very obvious; it's called a 'Border crossing'. Crossing anywhere else is in violation of someone's or everyone's property rights.
    And; the article ignores the moral standard most of live by...it's called knocking upon your neighbors door and asking to come in out of respect for their right of property.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
    "My postion is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools should all be privately owned and privately run." -Ayn Rand, the Playboy Interview, 1964.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      But it is still a public thoroughfare property rights are not unlimited.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
        But Ayn Rand’s position appears to be at variance with your example of the Homestead Act as an implementation of “freedom to travel”. You said: “Public roads or thoroughfares were built into the structure of the Homestead Act.” Ayn Rand states that streets and roads should be “privately owned and privately run.” This clearly includes the right of the owner to refuse access to people that he or she does not wish to have as customers (such as, for instance, drunk drivers). In principle it is no different than the right of a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Sometimes there may be “practical” difficulties to establishing and maintaining access to a given piece of property, but the free market is fully capable of overcoming such difficulties through transactions that satisfy the self-interest of all parties involved.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
          While locked up on your property with no way to move and no way out you could starve while waiting for the "market" to "overcome the difficulties".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
            I guess it would be theoretically possible for a person to (1) buy a landlocked piece of property with no legal access in or out, (2) negotiate with an adjacent landowner for access into the landlocked property (but no access for a return trip), (3) enter the landlocked property without any food or water, (4) negotiate with adjacent property owners for permission to exit your property through theirs, and (5) starve to death when negotiations fail. But is this unlikely scenario grounds for allowing government to control access rights for all private property in the nation?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
              It's not only an unlikely scenario, it is irrelevant fiction that does not characterize the fact that the "free market" does not act by itself to instantaneously solve all serious problems that may or may not be caused by vindictive individuals. That does not mean the strawman of "allowing government to control access rights for all private property in the nation".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                Could you show me a more realistic way to arrive at a situation in which you are "locked up on your property with no way to move and no way out?"
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                  A real example was described elsewhere on this page here http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

                  In general there are laws and precedents on this issue because it does occasionally come up even with the dominance of so much transportation as 'public property'. It is additionally important because of the logical concern that with more private roads it could occur more often, not in a sweeping way -- it did not, for example, with privately run railroads, ships or airlines excluding people from travel -- but occasionally due to disputes or irrational behavior, including personal feuding or political ideology like the Trust case above.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
        Hello DB,
        Can you expand on this a little bit? Or point me to where you already have? I did read your article but I am still having trouble with this. I was also under the impression that Rand was entirely opposed to any sort of public property.

        I am not disagreeing with you, I am in 100% agreement with your solution to the "immigration problem" that is actually a welfare state problem. I must admit to letting my mind rest on the pragmatic idea to stop the bleeding first, until now, and it is hard to leave behind because I'm fairly certain we are going to bleed to death before the welfare state is ended but, as you have said, that is no reason to toss principals aside.

        I apologize if you have already covered this thoroughly somewhere but I've been watching this drag out over many posts and in so many pointless directions that it has been impossible to follow all of it. I just can't put together in my mind an Objectivist version of a public thoroughfare or other public property (other than minimal buildings and offices necessary for proper government functions) that does not violate someone's rights somehow.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
          Property rights cannot used to enslave someone. As a result, there has to be a way to travel to and from your property. You can have private property rights in a road, but that cannot be used to stop people from traveling freely. Either there has to be alternate routes or the owner has to let all people who pay the toll to travel over the road.

          The government does not own the public thoroughfare and now one may maintain it. However, you can never have property rights that enslave someone that would be a violation of the whole idea of rights.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
            Is it okay to let escaping criminals or drunk drivers use the road if they pay the toll? And can the owner leave a person trapped if he or she can't pay the toll?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
              At what point do you have the right to know if it is a criminal or a drunk driver that is paying the toll? Remember - only the retaliatory use of force is permitted. And you face this every day. On every road.

              What if a person can't pay the toll? He/she can barter, trade or make a deal of some kind. But that relies on the willingness of the owner or a third party to help. What if none of these options work out? The right to travel cannot be a claim on the product of someone else's labor. Yes, it is a legitimate question deserving of a legitimate answer. No doubt the market will find an answer. Most likely a third party or a charity. DB? Zen? Thoughts?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                It's your toll road, operate it however you want and face and accept the consequences, except that you're not allowed to initiate force to your customers.
                Customers will decide if they want to go through your conditions, or find another route, or a competitor will offer different conditions for use that draw your dissatisfied customers away.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                  Yes, just as any other business. Don't want to hire someone of a particular race? You will pay the price when the best possible candidate happens to be of that race. Or your customers may ditch you when they find out. Either way, the market makes you pay and govt. interference is not necessary.

                  But where this is different is you have the possibility of having the only route available or possibly the only thing within many miles. This would effectively eliminate competition. How do you deal with that? Specifically if someone can't pay. I realize this looks like nitpicking details but If you're wondering why some people are having difficulty with this subject (I AM NOT BLARMAN!) here it is. I can't back something if I can't follow it through as far as I can see it going.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
            Thank you DB. Please bear with me, I am not trying to change your mind, more of solidifying it in mine. If a road is privately owned then it is a business and the business must make money charging people for the use of the road. If the business owner decides he doesn't want black people on his road (assuming it is still 1860), if there is no alternate route he can be forced to do business with them. The only thing separating this from other, improper, antidiscrimination laws is the fact that he is operating a public thoroughfare. To accept this one must accept that his discrimination is actually doing physical harm to a person or group of people by not letting them travel where they wish to go. I accept that. He may charge them because their right to travel does not entitle them to the product of his labor but he may not harm them by denying them access. I can accept that.

            I may be making a bigger deal of it than it should be but that is still a fine tightrope to walk there.

            I am not yet on board with the government as just a caretaker of public property. It took me all day to get this far (been working too) but I have long maintained that there is no such thing as public property, just park a 5th wheel camper in the wrong area of a national or state park and you'll find out who owns it real quick. I know it's a pragmatic position for dealing with an overreaching government but nothing is owned by nobody, and everybody can't own anything. I'll keep working on it though. Right now my head hurts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 1 month ago
    ” The logical opposite of the freedom to travel, is imprisonment."

    So the individual's freedom to travel gives them the right to traverse any place on earth, private or public, as long as they (the traveler) have no clear intent to harm anyone.

    This implies that any tribe, country, or nation can have no control of its borders, that all humans are citizens of the earth who can live wherever they choose.

    So if America wants to control immigration by controlling its borders, they are, in reality, imprisoning 7 billion humans who might want to come and live here.

    What would this stateless utopia of yours look like? What form of government would it have? Would this "right to travel" supersede all private property rights as to ownership of land?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
      I cant see letting anyone just go anywhere freely. Why have private property then. The hordes could just decide to camp out on my land and make it difficult for me to carry on my activities.. I could wind up with 50 immigrants just "moving in"- which I woudlnt like.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
        No one advocates trespass on your private property, but even you have to have public access in order 'to carry on your activities'.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
          but how do we grant access to that public property? Obviously I wouldnt want invading armies to have it, even on their way to capturing someone elses private property. Or hordes of refugees for that matter. Not an easy question
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
        Her'es the real sequence. It's called squatting. They move in at the start of winter and you cannot evict them. The legal stuff starts when the weather is warm, later if children are involved. By the time anything happens it's cold weather again. Oregon it took two to three years. Mitch Rapp a fiction hero solved the problem by hiring the squatters and gave them free run of the apartment except his room and one locked case under the bed. Came back found all his weapons had been cleaned. The squatter asked what do you do for a job. "Evict Squatters." I may have screwed up a few lines...but it works for me.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
        There is a distinction between preventing trespass on your private property versus claiming that the whole country is collectively "owned" as an excuse to prevent immigration.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
          why is it, that no matter how many times it is clearly stated that traveling freely does NOT mean trespass, the ones disagreeing with that statement reference trespass? After so many continue to do this, I think it has to be restated differently than no one shall trespass onto private property. Is there a clearer way to state that? I don't think so
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
            Some problems that I have seen;
            The topic of traveling freely vs trespass is not as simple as some might like to think but it has not been dealt with thoroughly enough. At least not all in one location in these posts.

            Every time someone does begin to deal with the topic someone else goes off on a tangent. Some intentionally, I think. There are at least 4 posts (maybe more) and it has been impossible to follow.

            I kept quiet until this post hoping to gather enough information to deal with the conflicts I was seeing but whenever the subject went the right direction someone got frustrated and quit trying to explain what they thought was obvious or someone else started their tangent, causing even more frustration.

            Look for my interactions with DB and Zen on this post to see how I had to work it out. I wrote out my basic train of thought (the shortened version) so those who take it for granted could see the process I went through. I had to ask my questions very carefully because I was essentially asking questions that had been asked before and dismissed outright without explanation.

            You are absolutely right that "no one shall shall trespass onto private property" vs "free to travel" needs to be addressed differently. But not more clear. More in depth. Students of Objectivism need to know why that is and how that can be accomplished without violating someone's rights. While we must come to the proper conclusions in our own minds you can't just say "this is the way it is, figure it out." The answer is more in depth than that. And not so obvious. This debate should be evidence of that.

            I am still having trouble with the idea of government as a "caretaker" of public property but I don't want to open that can of worms on this post.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
              I missed those questions. can you point me to it? I think Dale was thorough in his explanation on this post. I am going to research a little on this. I think Locke will provide some answers. I thought Aristotle in Politics, but not finding anything on line so far and have limited time as I am in Germany with my daughter right now. and it is confusing that prominent Objectivists disagree on this subject. I am trying to get Yaron Brook's position, but I do not see it follow from first principles. I can only surmise that it may have to do with his growing up in Israel -a war ready country from its founding. I mean, he grew up with putting on gas masks as a drill. Dale has been clear that war is different. He has also been clear that a war on terror is an anti-concept.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
            Also, there were many comments that basically amounted to deliberate attempts to derail and mislead that were given far more attention than they deserved. This added to the difficulty of picking out the facts and the honest discussion about the actual topic.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
          The whole issue of dealing with ownership and control of so called public lands is very tricky indeed. I can't gain access to my land without traveling through public lands in one way or another
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
      In 1997 I had occasion to spend eight months cruising the South Pacific Islands. In one conversation with the locals one of them remarked, "You see this as a paradise. We see it as a prison. How long would it take to walk 18 miles? That is the length of our longest road. About that time the ferry came in the Tahiti Harley Club debarked. They were doing the Bora Bora Run. They must have stopped for lunch as they returned in time to reboard for a return to Papeete.

      Tahitians like many in the South Seas have no concept of private ownership. they need a hammer or saw they walk over pick up one not in use and perhaps return it whenever. Their concept is why would you be different? Then everyone would have to buy a hammer and everyone would have to work all day.

      Sounded like paradise to me....

      Point is we are fifty states with fifty ways of living. The main complaint here is why does it have to be the same way everywhere? Fine for robots and humanoids. Except at the border of the larger entity.

      Which reminds me the difference between an entity and an individual. Entities can't vote - unless George Soros gives them permission.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  sjatkins 4 years, 1 month ago
      Is the logical equivalent to freedom to walk onto my property the inability to move?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 1 month ago
        No. The whole premise of this post is a false dichotomy. There is no connection between private property and immigration. The real question is whether a group of people in control of a piece of land have the moral and legal authority to control who enters their piece of land. This is Jefferson's reason for writing "...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
          wrong. Please check your premises on "whether a group of people in control of a piece of land have the moral and legal authority to control who enters their piece of land"
          are you confusing a nation with private property?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 1 month ago
            No I'm not confusing nationhood with private property. However, I would like for you to clarify your stance on immigration and , therefore, I will rephrase in the form of a question. Does America (a group of people in control of a piece of land) have the right to decide who and how many aliens (non-citizens) will be allowed to immigrate?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
              As a man, I have the same rights as the individual you and any other man. And those rights include the right to my life and to earn the needs to at least maintain that life if not improve it. You, nor any other man have a right to deny or limit the exercise of my rights as long as I don't use force against you.

              And just because you call yourself an American instead of just a man doesn't increase your ability to deny or limit my rights as a man. If I need to move to a different place in order to continue to exist or to conduct business or to freely associate or just to explore, I have the right to travel there with no restriction, again other than to initiate force against another.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                The “right to travel” has two components – the right to exit and the right to enter. I doubt that many on this board would dispute one’s right to exit a dictatorship. But the right to enter a particular geographical location is another matter entirely. One may not enter your house without permission, because it’s your private property. One many not enter a gated community without permission, because it’s the owners’ private property. The same logic extends upwards to cities, states and nations, provided all property is private, which in an Objectivist nation it would be. No one is “imprisoned” and no one’s rights are violated by being denied access to property that is not their own.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                  "The “right to travel” has two components – the right to exit and the right to enter. I doubt that many on this board would dispute one’s right to exit a dictatorship. But the right to enter a particular geographical location is another matter entirely."

                  It would seem you have a contradiction there. One that your logic doesn't solve. If you are a student of Objectivism, you know what to do next.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                    Please elucidate, I don't see any contradiction. And having been an advocate of Objectivism since 1962, I no longer refer to myself as a "student of Objectivism," although I am always willing to learn new things.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                      Objectivism at it's core is life based, egoistic, selfish, and rationally understood to apply equally to all humans that accept and live by the Non Aggression Principle. It is not Nationalistic, statist, collectivist, or socialist. In fact it is the exact opposite of all those ideas.

                      The group excluding others from what it calls It's Territory is the epitome of Nationalism as well as the others. One cannot be Objectivist while at the same time denying or attempting to limit others rights, before those others at least demonstrate their intent to apply force to gain what they want.

                      As I've said in other comments, 'If some are not free---then no one is free.' One only loses that freedom when he runs into my right of self defense from aggression or force.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                        'If some are not free---then no one is free." I don't agree. Freedom in the world today is a matter of degree, not an either/or, all-or-none condition. We are much more free than those living under the heel of ISIS.

                        And private property carries with it the right to exclude others from one's "territory". In a nation where all or nearly all property is private, this "territory" would be the entire country. Anyone coming into such a country could do so only with permission of the owner of the property that he or she landed on. Thereafter, the immigrant could only travel on or otherwise use this property in a manner that was acceptable to the property owner. The same would apply to any other private property accessed by the immigrant. Under such circumstances, mass immigration would likely not exist and thus would not become a huge political and social issue.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                          " 'If some are not free---then no one is free." I don't agree."Freedom in the world today is a matter of degree, not an either/or, all-or-none condition"

                          And Capitalism in the world today is a failure. Look how poorly it has done in the banking, health care and insurance industries.

                          Do you see the severely flawed logic in these two statements?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                            No I don't. The first is not a statement of logic, it is a statement of fact. The second lacks precision because the word "capitalism" is a vague term that has multiple meanings. For this reason I never invoke the word "capitalism" when advocating for economic liberty. I use the term "free market," which is much less subject to abuse and much less likely to be associated with cronyism in the minds of the general public.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                              The statements are very clear. As was the question.
                              Since you have chosen to evade the question there is no use to continue.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                                Your question was "Do you see the severely flawed logic in these two statements?" My answer was "No I don't." A clear answer to a clear question.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                                  OK, fair enough. The first statement was a statement of logic. You were explaining why you did not agree. If there is no logic there, that's on you.
                                  My mistake on the second phrase. I used a capital "C" Capitalism referring to Ayn Rand's definition of it. I assumed that, as a long time fan of Ayn Rand, you would understand. You could easily have substituted "free market" and gotten the same results. My apologies.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                      Really? How can you exit a dictatorship without entering another "geographical location"? Contradiction.

                      Glad you're willing to learn. Otherwise this has been a great waste of our time. Eh?
                      Better than could be said for some.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Please quote my actual post, I said particular geographical location. Or is a person entitled to enter any property in another country, as long as it borders his own?
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                          "any property"??? Come on, don't do that. There are proper routes of travel that does not need to include "any property" referring to private property. Is there a proper reason to restrict that person who is escaping from a dictatorship from entering another country? Give it at least a little bit of honest thought.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                            "Proper routes of travel" in an Objectivist country would be very different from those that exist today. I would have no objection to the use of such routes in a free society. But in the current situation, are you in favor of protecting the property rights of landowners near the Mexican border? Their lands, which are violated daily, are hardly "proper routes of travel." And last I checked, Mexico is not a dictatorship.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                              So now you're back to the practical/pragmatic solution.
                              The current situation violates everyone's rights. The proper routes of travel are blocked by armed guards and barricades. Remove those and there is no reason to cross private property.

                              Mexico is not quite a dictatorship, but if you were stuck in Mexico, you would want to come here. I know I would.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                                To repeat my question, in the current situation, are you in favor of protecting the property rights of landowners near the Mexican border? Or to rephrase the question from the property owner's point of view: Does the government have an obligation to protect me and my property from people crossing the border? Straightforward questions, both of them.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                                  Yes. The government absolutely, positively must protect you and your personal, private property from anybody knowingly entering without permission. They must do this by the retaliatory use of force only.

                                  Therefore; The government must end the war on drugs. The government must end the income tax. The government must, absolutely must end welfare.

                                  Three things.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                  again, as has been stated now, what-21 times? a international border is NOT private property. and no one is advocating trespass onto private property. this cannot be stated more clearly and these arguments are strawmen because they are not promoted by the poster.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                    An international border is not private property. Land immediately adjacent to an international border is private property (or would be in an Objectivist society). The property owner has the right to control access to his property from neighboring properties in his own country. Are you saying that he does not have the right to control access to his property from neighboring properties in another country?
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                      I don't see why you insist on trying to say that all property in an Objectivist society would be privately owned. There is no Objectivist principle that even implies that. At best, all property would be available for private ownership. But you're also arguing for the right to imprison others with your property rights. That's the initiation of force.

                      If you want to buy a piece of property along the border and defend it against trespass, I'll support that, though the collectivist and statist governments we've allowed to take over our country probably wouldn't. But I won't support you because of your desire to be Nationalistic. Then I might buy the land next to you and build a road with a big sign, that says "THIS WAY TO FREEDOM"
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                        How does defending my property rights amount to imprisoning others or initiating force? And how does upholding the validity of national borders become a “desire to be nationalistic”? These accusations have no basis in reality. My position is fully consistent with Objectivism. Ayn Rand has said that a free nation has a right to its “territorial integrity” and to its “sovereignty”. She has defended the right to private property, and trespassing is a clear violation of that right. I would expect that many, perhaps most, citizens of a free nation would welcome refugees escaping from a dictatorship, but that does not give such refugees the right to invade the property of those who, for whatever reason, do not wish to do so.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                          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.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                            Ayn Rand says that a nation has a right to its sovereignty (by the definition you cited, “the full right and power of a governing body to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies”). She also states, “A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government.” These two statements, taken together, lead to the conclusion that the U.S. government’s first duty is to its citizens, and protection of their rights and property takes precedence over protection of the rights of non-citizens in its territory (except for instances in which the government has specifically taken on such obligations, for example through the issuance of visas). Objectivism does not permit unchosen obligations, either by citizens or by the governments that such citizens create and maintain.

                            And regarding the last paragraph of your post, is it your position that the U.S. government should be defending property owners near the Mexican border against the waves of immigrants overrunning their land?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                    Just because you state it doesn't make it so.

                    America's existence is by the authority of its people. As you know each state was its own entity and those States (acting on behalf their people) authorized a federal government to maintain common interests - one being defending the states united. You cannot defend what you cannot define. A border is the definition, that line of demarcation, of the people of the United States landmass (and any country) which defines its private property. Logically and rationally the United States as a sovereign nation, granted its authority to exist by its people, can and should regulate immigration how its people see.

                    Just because Objectivistism does not acknowledge the sovereignty of nations does not make it so, even if you say it 250 or 250,000 times. The passages quoted by JBrenner in another thread make a hell of a lot more sense in reality.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                      Objectivism does acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, " A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. . . Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Sure it does, and it has an Army (Navy, Air Force, etc) to make sure that other nations respect that with self defense against other nations attempts to inflict force.
                        It's sovereignty does not derive from it's citizens, it derives from "We the People" and "All men are created equal" and "have the unalienable right to life, liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

                        I simply can't understand individuals whom are supposedly and avowedly Objectivist that can buy off on the concepts of Nationalism. The two just don't mesh in any rational or logical manner.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                          Regarding "It's sovereignty does not derive from it's citizens": Ayn Rand says the exact opposite in The Virtue of Selfishness: "Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."

                          Please define what you mean by "nationalism", and where you think it conflicts with Objectivism.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                            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....
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                              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.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                        I concluded as much after having read JBrenner's Rans quotes. To me this makes entire sense. I'm not even sure why anyone here would object to anything I presented or support this right to travel.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                          This a direct quote from Rand's extemporaneous reply to another stating the exact same thing you advocate:

                          “You don’t apparently know what my position on self interest is.

                          “I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended.

                          “But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? [At this point she begins to become intense.] How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted [becomes very intense] when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.”
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                            As far as I know, no one on this forum has opposed mass immigration in order to prevent economic competition. Plenty of non-Objectivists have made that argument, however.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                      I m not making this up. It is called the Commerce Clause. The whole point the Clause is that people and goods may travel freely between states. The collective people of AZ may not stop the collective people of Utah from coming and going and trading in AZ. Among a proper govt, they do not stop people from traveling. It would only make sense in a case of war. Freedom is about individual rights. You can't treat people as a group under individual rights, unless you are in a state of war, and even then, very limited. Ex: Japanese American internment
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Khalling- I'm not talking about movement between the States (You know this). The United States settled that matter many years ago and formed a government of the people of the United States and for the people of the United States. The issue is with those who exercise the "right to travel" by crossing a national borders in flagrant violation United States laws (the American peoples laws governing THEIR private property). And yes we do have checkpoints established at some points between the States in areas frequently traveled by illegal aliens and drug traffickers. And yes I have been stopped by those checkpoint between Phoenix and Tucson, Phoenix and California, Phoenix and Nevada, and Phoenix and Utah.

                        Zenpahamy - with how much conviction and vigor would you support an actual Gulch? While not a nation, you'd be exhibiting a form of nationalism, no?

                        I've never hid that I do not consider myself anything but a Constitutional Conservative. Thanks to these discussions the reasons for me doing so has never been more apparent to me.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                          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.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                            I think you miss the point. Not everyone is like you, not everyone respects what you do. If there were a physical Gulch of say 300 people, and 150 people passively entered the area and put down roots and, over time their numbers swelled to 600 people while Gulch natives expanded to 375, how long do you figure before they are no longer passive and tell you what to do and how its to be done. How long before the beauty of what you value is distorted to satisfy their wants? Do you assimilate? Do you again run to form another Gulch, abandoning what you've built and leaving behind whatever you can't carry?

                            Welcome to what will be Arizona and the US. The Gulch will be a collective society like every other society ever conceived and it will eventually be forced to protect what it values or forever be running to find somewhere where it can't be easily found - or make a forcefield to stay hidden. If you have to hide are you free?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                          Where do you think the word "states" comes from? It is exactly the basis for any border. There is historical basis of the US is that they were separate countries, colonies.

                          This post is not dealing with current US law, this is a philosophical discussion on what is the proper answer. Why do you continue to conflate the two? Please answer just once, why you are so resistant to a pro-freedom solution?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 years, 1 month ago
                            The reason several of us are resistant to this particular pro-freedom solution is that it attacks the symptoms rather than the cause. The cause of the problem is the looter-crony-moocher triumvirate, with emphasis on the former two. Ridding us of the welfare state would be a monumental and wonderful improvement, but it would far from solve the problem, because then the locust triumvirate would feed more directly on us.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • -2
                            Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                            The States haven't been truly independent entities since they established a federal government.

                            If you want to go back then you're talking the nomadic migratory mentality before tribal communities.

                            Pro-freedom is a misnomer for what you're peddling. You want open borders or no borders without private property (the US border IS the private property of the American populace). This is unacceptable to me since I value that which is mine, including this country and its history.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by j_IR1776wg 4 years, 1 month ago
                May I conclude from your statements that there should be:
                1) No nations?
                2) No borders?
                3) No laws? If there are to be laws should they be made and enforced by a global agency such as the U.N.?
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                  NO, you may not. You may conclude that Individual Natural Rights are absolute. Borders are lines in the sand and any law made that infringes on Individual Natural Rights are immoral.
                  A couple of quotes that I'm reminded of in these discussions:
                  "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive." —Albert Einstein .
                  "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage—to move in the opposite direction." —Albert Einstein
                  And:
                  "I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented, at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air— that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave." —H. L. Mencken
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                    Individual rights can only be absolute if you are alone. As soon as your activities impinge upon the rights of another person someone's rights are going to be limited.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                      I continue to be amazed, that in a country founded on the principles of Individual Natural Rights that so many express such misunderstanding of what they are and how they apply to the life of a man.

                      The only situation that limits the activities of a man is when he attempts to infringe on the rights of another. The infringer's rights aren't limited, he doesn't have the right to infringe in the first place. And as to being alone, there is no one to infringe on.

                      And since he doesn't have that right in the first place, he encounters the Individual Natural Right of the man being infringed on, of self defense.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Ok. I accept that rights are absolute -- except where they infringe on the rights of others.

                        And we can and will spend endless hours debating just what infringements are acceptable and which ones are not. And we won't agree.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                          No infringements are acceptable. Only retaliatory and retributive self defense, but the man that has infringed on another to trigger that self defense right has no Objectively moral rights at that point.

                          That's my debate stance.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
                            Given that debate stance, wouldn't a person trespassing on someone's private property after crossing a national border lose all of his Objectively moral rights? And at that point, wouldn't the host government be relieved of any obligation to recognize or protect his rights (assuming it had such an obligation in the first place)?
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                              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).
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                      and what activities that do not initiate force are those, william?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Asking to enter private property, for one. Accepting when entrance to private property is denied. Halting at a border (a property line) when asked and not forcing the use of force to make you stop.

                        This isn't difficult. It more respectful.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                        Rand uses the term 'force' rather loosely. For example if I agree to mow your lawn and do not, that is considered 'initiating force' because I broke a contract.

                        To go back to Jan's Goat Evisceration argument, if we have neighboring plots of land and you burn tires on a day when the wind is blowing in my direction you are going to forcibly fill my property with noxious fumes. Or you may simply play rap music really loud in the middle of the night which will certainly forcibly interrupt my sleep.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                          Yes, and you have 'tort' responses to make to the mowing fraud and that damage to the peaceful occupation and use of your property.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                            I would agree, but when the subject came up many people said they had the absolute right to use their own property so if I didn't like their burning tires or loud music I had the freedom to sell my property and move away but not to interfere with their freedom.

                            My point is that people toss around our rights but even here there is little consensus on what they actually are.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
                              Rand builds on Locke and the Founders on rights and there's a whole body of work on this. It is not vague. Under a proper definition and approach to Natural Rights, you do not list out all your rights. You have a right to do anything not prohibited, while the govt is only allowed to do those things that it is expressly allowed to do so.

                              Going from rights to laws and specific situations under the law is real work and Rand was not a legal scholar nor claimed to be. She laid out the framework for a proper legal system (she and many others). You are asking detailed specific situations opposed to general principles. Working out the detailed legal understanding of a particular situation would not be appropriate on this post nor is it necessary to resolve any issues regarding the general principles of the right to travel. btw, I laid out the general principles for how property rights work on this post. However, I can lay out the general principles of genetics, but that does not mean that it does not still take real work to apply these principles to specific situations. That does not mean principles in genetics are unclear.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
                                Here Here! Enough of all the nonsensical, extreme stuff. You have explained it very well and in easy to understand language! I do not get all of the repetitious roadblocks to reason some are posting on this page. Thank you db
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                              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.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                              natural rights have been properly defined MANY times on this site. Go to ARI or Atlas Society. read dozens of articles-see videos all defining rights. If you are interested, that is. BUt to make a sweeping statement that Rand uses the term "force" loosely would be telling me that you have not explored much Rand.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                          what nonsense. The breaking of a contract happens for many reasons-not in the least an initiation of force. Those issues all have remedies in a proper govt situation. The fact I am an illegal mexican walking down the road next to your house is NOT initiation of force
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                      The only purpose of rights is guidelines for men to deal with one another. There is no need for rights if you are alone. Rights, properly defined, have limits. That has been said over and over. But a properly defined right is absolute and cannot be limited beyond that definition. That is a violation of a right. That requires force. Exercising your rights within their proper definitions is not a limit (violation) of another's rights.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                        That may well be a circular definition. So your rights are absolute, but only if you define them properly. And if you find that your rights interfere with someone else's rights, then you haven't defined them properly.

                        Ok, but that's not a very useful use of the word absolute -- it becomes synonymous with unchallenged.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                          I'm not sure the two of you are discussing the same thing.
                          A natural right is absolute. You do have to properly define them. This is Locke and Rand. You are a US citizen, go read about Natural Rights. For all of those so worried about being invaded, they should at least study rights as defined by the philosophers who influenced the founders and the founders on issue.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                  If that is what you conclude from Zen's statements then we can conclude from yours that you have no intention of even attempting to understand what he said?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                    I'd love to see how long the Gulch would survive implementing this particular principle. WilliamShipley is correct, individual rights can only be absolute if you are alone - I'd add, residing with others of like mind.

                    I'd wager the Gulch would soon take up arms or at the very least provide some filtering (regulating) at a guard post. After all, you protect what you value...unless of course you have no right to own anything.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                      The Gulch was the private property of Midas Mulligan and those he sold or rented lots to. Since it was hidden by Galt's shield, there was no need to exclude or have guard shacks, though Rearden (?) did put together a just in case force for some of the passes up near the mine. The Gulch is not a proper comparison to the US.

                      Yes, individuals have the right of self defense which includes the right to exclude trespass on the property they own. But they do not have an Individual Natural Right to exercise those rights over property that they don't own. That concept is statist, collectivist, and socialist.

                      The Founders of this nation explicitly said that all men are born equal and have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not just those that are born here or are citizens and not just those we consider worthy. There is no authority over immigration granted in the Constitution, only naturalization.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
                        So its a single entity thing?

                        Only because 1 person owns the land it can be considered private. A group of individuals cannot delegate a person or group of people to manage their combined lands?

                        So you're saying that kings, communist countries, and a dictatorships that claim all land and all possessions as their own had it right?

                        Are you then saying that serfdom is preferable to representative government because only the overlord can have private property?

                        Yes, I'm being absurd..but I cannot agree with this right to travel fantasy. Not only isn't it practical it defies reality and reason where private ownership is concerned.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 2 months ago
    The reason a number of us keep bringing up The Gulch in this discussion is that it represents at least Ayn Rand's fictional attempt to describe a community of producers who followed her philosophy.

    The fact that it was the private property of a single individual as well as the secrecy, oaths, and exclusiveness demonstrates the problems that constructing such a thing in the real world entail.

    Single ownership would not be attractive to most of the individualists on this site who would like to own their own land, thank you. And once that happens you have to have ways for them to jointly manage any land that is considered for common use.

    While the basis of rights is the individual, many of our commercial activities are carried out by many individual acting jointly. Frequently property is jointly owned. I am a major shareholder of a company that owns our office unit. The office unit, itself, is part of a condominium structure and fourteen other companies or individuals own the other units. There is a common area owned by all of us, but we can jointly control access to that area.

    This is very common.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
      But Rand didn't represent her Gulch as a Nation/state, but a privately owned refuge for the essential producers of her world to escape the madness of the rest of the world and to withdraw their sanction. And thoroughfares and access were incorporated into those lots sold or rented.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 4 years, 1 month ago
      This is why we have philosophers I guess. This whole discussion kind of gives me a headache. We seem to have a decent definition of private property here in the USA, except when it comes to government ownership of land. As to immigration, I dont mind if people want to come here, but they must assimilate into OUR culture, speak OUR language, or go back to where you came from really and make THAT culture better.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
        Stop the government welfare, 'they' will assimilate and learn the language, or they won't succeed and will return to their own. It worked that way for more than 150 years. Some, like the Amish and Tejanos and Native Americans maintained their home languages, but also learned English. Get the government out of it and let the free market and free people solve the problem (if any really exist).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
    I am going to respond here to DBHalling's insulting comments. I do not agree with your article. Even though it is poorly written, I will attempt a rebuttal in plain English.

    1) "...self-ownership means that you can travel freely. If that was not the case then someone could control where you went, which means you do not own yourself."

    Your logic here is faulty:

    Statement A: "self-ownership means that you can travel freely"
    NOT A: "self-ownersnip does NOT mean that you can travel freely"
    Thus your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise. In fact, I like the logical conclusion better.

    2) Private property means property that is owned by someone. If a person owns property, then he has a right to control who can enter it. So the owner of private property controls where you go. This is freedom.

    3) "There is a principled solution to the immigration problem..." Admitedly, your "solution" is desirable. But it does not solve the "immigration problem", unless your meaning is that people could then enter the country without anyone having the need to stop them. But private property owners - meaning the whole of the country - would still require them to have permission to enter their property, so there would be no place for the immigrants to go. This is the reason for border controls.

    4) "Anyone who continues to push ... limits on the immigration and travel of people across the US border can no longer pretend they are freedom." I maintain that you have not shown this to be true. In fact such an "anyone" is sticking up for freedom, by insisting that such "people" have permission to travel on private property before entering the US.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -1
      Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      It is interesting that you consider logic insulting
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
        Nice rebuttal, db.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
          How hard is it to understand that you cannot imprison someone with private property rights? How hard is to understand that a government cannot stop someone from traveling without using force?

          You ignore all simple logic and tie yourself in knots trying to justify your statist point of view.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
            How hard is it to explain clearly what you think is wrong with my logic, instead of making it sound like I have a comprehension problem - I don't! You are again insulting my intelligence, instead of attacking my statements. Your whole demeanor is arrogant in the extreme.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
              The answer is straight forward - you cannot use property rights to imprison anyone and a proper government cannot initiate force You are attempting to do both and yet deny it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  prof611 4 years, 1 month ago
                You are weaseling out of it again! But I am tired of this. I am going to take your refusal to tell me exactly what is wrong with my analysis of this problem as proof that I am right. I don't have any more patience, so I am not going to respond to any more of your arrogant BS.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MikeGoodman59 4 years, 1 month ago
    Heard some conehead on Faux SNews the other day. Wishes we had more immigration. Thought there should be no borders. Wanted to reach in to the screen and pull his bow tie and ask: "No borders? How about taking the locks off your doors, then?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 4 years, 1 month ago
    I do see a large flaw in the authors argument....He sates..." There have been cases in which a person sold a land locked plot without an easement. The courts have uniformly ruled that there was an implied easement, because otherwise land would be an island or a prison and the sale of the land would have to be considered fraudulent. The sale of the land implies being able to use and access the land. "

    however...just because someone buys land next to mine...that happens to be landlocked...it does not impose on me a duty to provide to him an access. He may well have been defrauded by the seller...but that has nothing to do with me and does not impose a duty upon me or make me a slave to the purchaser.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
      The land wasn't landlocked prior to the sale, or it would have been deemed a fraudulent sale. But if after the sale, you close off a road that crosses your property that previously was used to access that property, then you would be forced to open it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 4 years, 1 month ago
        That wasn't the scenario posed. In your example, you would have perpetrated a takings. The author said nothing about any existing right of way. The point I was making is that his example is flawed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
          I've encountered an example of the case posed in which a land owner sold another acreage within his surrounding acreage, then denied access through his still owned property. In court, it was found to be a fraudulent sale, or the seller had to provide easement.

          There has also been numerous cases of enclosing another's land by buying up all the surrounding land, then trying to deny access. Attempting to gain water and/or mineral sources, etc. Even the government. Easements were forced by courts.

          In some cases in which a county or state road, (even trail) had been abandoned, the owner of the land crossed tried a Quiet Title, again to deny access to another section of land, and the courts have forced easements.

          So I'd say the author's example wasn't flawed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by evlwhtguy 4 years, 1 month ago
            In all the cases you cite, a landowner took an action to limit access. None of these involve an innocent neighbor.....although, given the recent Kelo case...none of us actually own our property
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • -2
      Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      Why are you bringing up such as scenario? Clearly someone sold them that property, if so then they have the obligation - You response is below 2nd grade level logic.

      What is really amazing is that I have shown a pro-freedom solution to immigration, but you ignore it. We now know where you stand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 4 years, 1 month ago
        Did you even read my post? or the quote? The "They" that sold them the property may have some sort of obligation, but that obligation does not extend to the property owners around them. The "they" that sold the property or the nit wit that bought it without a deeded right of way, cannot impose a duty on me..the neighbor to provide a right of way. The only way that either the seller or the buyer can get a right of way is to convince me or one of the other neighbors to sell him one.Or worse......try to get the court to force us.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by  $  MichaelAarethun 4 years, 1 month ago
          Not the only way. Case in point. Friend of mine lived on the corner leading to two dead end streets. Traffic was fairly quiet. the area beyond street A. was zoned for development. It required road building. The beginning saw one half given approval the othe half denied approval. Developer bought a lot on Street B and built a road through it to the main area of interest. All perfectly with in the owners rights so far. Street B became a very unpleasant situation. To lessen the traffic on B the City council returned to street A. Owner refused. City needed five feet of the thirty available. Then declared eminent domaina and paid over market value for the 150 x five foot area needed. They also looked at the B Street continuation and took enough to bring that street up to standards to allow fire and emergency vehicles. It had been 2' too narrow. Once in place the new road on Street A allowed a greater traffic flow with decreased problems. Every step was done openly and with in the confines of the law. The recalcitrant owner sold out and left. The new owner said. I want a sidewalk on both sides. May i donate the land? It looks like a waiver of set back o f less than a foot. Everyone still living their was happy. The road on B Street was shut down and a house built on the lot. The sleep neighbor hood returned. Eminent Domain was never used. The first owner just signed the permission papers then sold out. But it would have been. Ability and will to use it. That town had a number of similar problems. No one had looked ahead or thought it through saying we'll never need that! 300 became 1200 became 2000 an now it's on it's way to 10,000. population. Why? The land use plan is set in stone and everyone is afraid to let the State back in asking for a change. At 5,000 they will need a new sewer and water system upgrade. Davis - Bacon will enter the picture again. No one wants to let the federal government in either. It's cheaper to buy up the the area and make a big park.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • -2
          Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
          You still are absurd and what is amazing is that you do not know it.

          What is really amazing is that I have shown a pro-freedom solution to immigration, but you ignore it. We now know where you stand.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by evlwhtguy 4 years, 1 month ago
            Dkhaling...buddy...so far all you have done is question my intelligence.....So please explain to me why I as a third party have any duty whatsoever to this landowner to provide for him a right of way?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 years, 1 month ago
    I cannot totally agree. I understand the point but I hate anyone to tamper with what is mine. Does the government own property? Yes. Does that make the government a private property owner, or does that make the citizens co-owners of the property with the government just controlling it for us? If I take the problem down to a more personal level; Say I own a very expensive watch. Should I allow an illegal to take it from me if he doesn't have one? Could he 'borrow" it without my consent? Let us face reality, we don't live in a free country. OK, I understand Atlantis will be free(er) and the ideal will be more likely, but not here -- not now.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
      No a proper government cannot have property rights in land. Government's do not create things, so they cannot be legitimate owners.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
        So no person can be delegated to act in your interest? A lawyer? A wife? A good friend who you trust? Acting in trust does not so much imply ownership as much as stewardship.

        Government of the people, by the people, for the people (at least the original intent)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
          A lawyer, wife or trusted friend is an individual who acts freely by right. The government is not and does not. Socialist collective ownership claimed to act on behalf of the collective of people is the opposite of private rights. Government land "ownership" means that no one owns it.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
          Yeah down vote the Gettysburg address...ewv, I assume. The reference was to establish that we the people of the United States own all land within its borders and appoint a government, chosen by the people, to act as the people steward on matter common to all the States. Typical.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
            And shortly after that speech, Lincoln had the Federal and State legislators, Governors, and attorney Generals thrown out of office and appointed his own, some not even from the individual state.
            It's never what they say, it's what they do.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 4 years, 1 month ago
              I'm not a huge fan of Lincoln and the massive expansion of federalism which was the Civil War.

              Yes, what they do is more relevant than what they say. Even so, for the purpose of my statement the sentiment remains.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
            Rejection of an appeal to collective ownership in the name of the Gettysburg address is not "down voting the Gettysburg address", which was not a call for socialism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
    You know, I have been reading all of these posts for days now, and it occurs to me that some are making this issue of Property Rights seem so complicated when it really isn't. Just check your premise. Objectively speaking, no one has the right to force anyone to do anything unless they are violating your personal rights to your life and your property. You can throw all the extreme examples at this that you want, but the truth still remains the same. We are not talking about "laws of the land" here as we all know that some laws are corrupt and do not represent Objectivist ideals. We are talking about what is right and what is wrong. A is A. 1 + 1 = 2. No one can change that no matter how complicated things become.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
      Hello ycandrea,
      I think that some of the problem has been some oversimplification. Many of us Are checking our premises and finding contradictions. But the simple answers aren't enough to eliminate those contradictions. Sometimes you don't find those contradictions until you throw the extreme examples at it. Sometimes what looks like a contradiction is not a contradiction at all but if you stop before you get to it you might go in the wrong direction. If all you find are contradictions you might settle for a pragmatic solution. I got my answers. Some didn't. Some didn't want answers.

      Just sayin'
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
        I do understand Kevin. But there is a root, a beginning, a basis that every question stems from. If you can clear your way back to the basic foundation of the problem, you will usually find your answer. Sometimes you "can't see the forest for the trees". I also have problems applying Objectivist principals to all situations. I too, come to this blog for clarity and to have those "but of course" moments. I too cannot always find the right words or the premise to explain things. I did find this Property Rights and Immigration question answered in these posts. Keep searching and if you are like me, a light will come on in your mind and you will find comfort in knowing you understand.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 years, 1 month ago
    Some horribly flawed arguments in here.

    "Your rights in say land are limited by the activity you undertook to obtain those rights."

    Your rights to property are defined by what you lay claim to and the control you exercise over it, I agree. This is also usually extended to recognition by legal authority due to filed claims, etc. for external enforcement purposes (executive and judicial actions).

    "It also does not mean you can put a huge pigsty on the edge your land next to your neighbor’s house."

    This is the same logic the EPA uses to tell people they can control the waterways. It is a collectivist argument. You sure you want to go there?

    "your property rights in land cannot be used to make someone a prisoner"

    The first implied argument (sorely flawed) is that freedom of movement trumps property rights. This is nonsense. Property rights by definition mean control over and access to a physical entity delineated by boundaries. If you argue that one has the freedom to go wherever one desires regardless of anything else, you are arguing that there is in fact no private property because you are arguing the invalidation of jurisdictional boundaries of geography.

    The second blatantly false assertion is that I am emprisoning or coercing someone else by refusing them permission to cross my land. This whole notion is patently absurd.

    "self-ownership means that you can travel freely."

    Not so. It means that one has actuation/control over one's own thoughts and to extension one's own body. However, the universe beyond that is not part of your inherent ownership, as it lies outside and distinct from you. That you have the ability to move is one thing. That you are permitted to move in a particular place is another matter entirely. Your argument is that the ability to move predicates the right to move anywhere one wishes. This is false. When one travels, one is asserting control over that territory - even if only briefly. But what happens when that claim of control is disputed? Who's use takes precedence? The owner's of course.

    By your argument, I should be permitted to travel freely through Groom's Lake and Area 51 in Nevada - being public lands - and open a shop there for business. Yeah. Good luck with that.

    "Property rights cannot be used to imprison someone or to keep two free people who want to meet or trade from doing so."

    Again, you presume the right to passage through another's domain regardless of permission. In so doing, you completely eschew their property rights. You may have permission (such as in the case of general use or "public" property), but this is far from being a given. I would note that the Constitution specifically identified and prohibited the US government from placing restrictions on travel between the individual States, but made no such prohibition on travel outside the States.

    "Public thoroughfares are controlled by the government. The government does not own these public thoroughfares, but it does police them."

    Police can certainly haul away a broken-down car from the side of the road as a travel nuisance. They can put up traffic signals on roads to control and manage the flow of traffic. And are not all of these restrictions on use of "public" thoroughfares? Absolutely. Use is conditional - never absolute as your argument holds.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 2 months ago
    Reading the referenced article and the comments about it, I can't decide if some just don't get property rights or that they just don't like the ideas of freedom of the individual. I'm beginning to think that when it comes to their own personal property, they get property rights just fine -- but when it comes to others on someone else's property or on public thoroughfares, they just don't like the others exercising individual freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
      The whole issue of public thoroughfares is a legitimate topic of debate on this forum, especially considering that Ayn Rand stated that streets and roads should be "privately owned and privately run." The rights of the owners, and the limitation of such rights in regard to public access, have not yet been spelled out in detail in terms of Objectivist ethical and political theory, and are not self-evident.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
        I think the issue is self evident. Public thoroughfares are exactly what the words used to describe them say. They are built and maintained on land that is either un-owned, purchased, donated, or taken to provide a way to travel without going through your neighbor's yards for use by the public (all the people outside of your private property).

        AR advocated for a system of laissez faire, free market capitalism. In that case, an individual/group rather than a government sets up a thoroughfare through land that he/they owns, buys, or receives from donations and then operates and maintains it as any other business would operate. The business owner makes contractual arrangements to connect to other owners' thoroughfares. It's a simple affair until government gets involved, or some authoritarian wants to use travel restrictions to control people.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
          This is what I see happening. You and DB and possibly several others have already been through this in your minds. I assume you have gone through all the steps, eliminated the contradictions and come to your conclusions. You take this subject for granted. I, for one, am literally working through this as all this goes on. I'm sure some others are too. Call it laziness, lack of time, whatever, but I have never worked through this subject completely. I have long agreed with your position on the immigration/welfare part of it and many here have said they do as well. It is the travel/borders/public thoroughfare part that I am talking about. I have not been through all of this thoroughly, I have not eliminated the contradictions and I have not come to my conclusions. When I see contradictions, I must ask and possibly do some research. I know some people (a lot) have been frustrating you guys but I think most of us would just like to clear up the contradictions. I must assume you went through the same process to be so sure of your conclusions. If you did not then maybe your frustration is unwarranted.

          There are few of you on this site that I think have a better understanding of Objectivism and its application than I do. Only a few who's comments I will seek out on an issue that has me perplexed or questioning. And every Damn one of you gets pissed off when someone else asks a question that I think is relevant but you think is self evident. And when you guys get pissed off, you don't tend to answer questions very well. Makes it tough to ask a question from where I'm sitting.

          That's my rant. I'm not asking you to pander to me. I'm just telling you what I see happening.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
            kevin; I certainly apologize if I seem 'pissed off' at anyone's lack of knowledge or true desire to learn or clarify issues or applications of Objectivist thought. Recognize that there are a certain number of individuals on this site that disagree with Objectivist philosophy or at least parts of it that they just won't or maybe can't adopt into their ways of thinking, probably from the discomfort of having to give up on something they've had shoved into their minds for years if not their entire lives. There are some that will insert themselves into posts or comment threads for the malicious intent of espousing non-objectivist and/or belief system issues and/or disrupting the type of understanding and discussion you're asking for.

            So ask all the questions you want kevin. If I see them, I'll make every attempt to answer them or suggest somewhere to look and I'll save my rancor for those that earn it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
              Thank you Zen,
              I hope you understand that was not personal and not directed at you alone. Perhaps this was not the proper place for such a rant but you did (a couple times) express interest in why some were having a hard time with the subject.

              I understand completely your frustration with those on here who would rather bend Objectivism to fit their ideas instead of the other way around and I admire your ability to see the root of their argument and not get trapped arguing with their endless rationalizations. I wish I had that ability. And those with malicious intent... Yeah, I understand. But I was pushing 40 when I was introduced to Objectivism and after 9 years these subjects still come up that I haven't thought through completely. And sometimes it is uncomfortable to realize that. I'm not the only one here but I also realize it can be hard to tell the difference. Thanks for keeping us in mind.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
            Here are some principles. I can explain them in more detail elsewhere but here goes.
            1. In any Objective, natural rights, system-it is a contradiction to suggest that property rights can be used to imprison someone
            2. A "proper" government cannot stop someone who is traveling on roads unless they have probable cause they are criminal.
            3. Property Rights are not unlimited, based on what you created.
            so, think of a private tollway that encircles a city. According to the "unlimited theory of property rights" tht person has the right to starve the entire city to enforce his "rights"?
            Dale went through this in great detail. Property rights are 1. not unlimited and 2. can NEVER be used to enslave people. and you know this. The contradiction is so huge that yes, it seems like people are not willing to think very hard about it. I see that you are willing to go through this.
            4. the anti-travel position can only be supported by a collectivist idea of property rights (which is a contradiction since they yell about trespass) violating my ability to travel and freely associate with other people.
            5. Dale showed in detail, property rights without the right to travel to and from the property, makes those rights meaningless.
            6. Every man has a property right in them self. That gives them rights. That means they need to be able to travel-otherwise you re a prisoner. Property rights can never be used to imprison someone.
            I'm not sure how I re-state this more clearly. Please present a logical argument where you are having trouble that does not result in one of these contradictions.

            Think of the troll under the bridge story. sorry :) it's a good example. that's closed borders
            [edited for restating]
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
              I also want to add, after being poked and prodded, my laptop slammed into the xray scanner, standing ridiculously with my feet apart and my hands over my head ( I thought that's how ISIS sometimes shoots people) -I came into Germany. I walked off the plane and no one asked me for a declaration of the value of my property on my person, I was not herded like cattle, I did not go through another scanner, no one asked me a bunch of arbitrary questions. I walked off the plane and into the sunshine.
              I felt welcomed. I am a US citizen and I NEVER feel welcomed coming into the country.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by freedomforall 4 years, 1 month ago
                I have felt that way returning to the US for over 20 years, kh. Having flown into China, France, the Netherlands, Thailand, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Panama, the Bahamas, Curacao, Bonaire since 2001, all treat visitors with respect. America is more like the old Soviet Union. Each time I return I am reminded of the book, A Time For Truth, by William Simon. In it, Simon reflects on returning from the Soviet Union and how when leaving the USSR the passengers cheered as they left knowing they were returning to freedom from dictatorship as if a great weight had been lifted. Unfortunately when I remember it, it is with profound sadness at what has been lost.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ycandrea 4 years, 1 month ago
                I did not know we were the only country with these extreme security procedures. I have never travelled outside of the US or it's territories. I hate the TSA so much that me and my husband bought an old RV and fixed it up so we can travel in peace around our country. With Mom and our rescue doggies.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
              so bringing up Billy Goats Gruff. here's why you don't see many analogies from dale and i get caught up in them sometimes.
              It will go to the weeds. we're going to get comments on
              1. patent trolls
              2. evil capitlists (Brechtian verson ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEllH... Three Penny Opera :)
              3. drug wars-taking advantage of someone else's property-a criminal.
              BUt this is a Grimm fairy tale and there was no established capitalism or property rights. This was a tale about the government
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
                AAANnnnnddddd now I have to go look up the troll under the bridge.
                This was a looonnnnggg time ago. :)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by khalling 4 years, 1 month ago
                  well in the story, the goats outsmart the troll. One can see a scenario that a bully/thief is using the bridge to keep others from passing, since they have limited options. Of course, this can be the very same argument the left uses against business people and the govt often uses against business people But the idea that you can't do regular business crossing the land or a bridge without a toll also can be used to demonstrate how governments enslave us or make us a prisoner. The security perceived problem is always a gotcha for freedom loss. why don't people get that? I suppose it mostly stems from a valid argument against anarchism. Of course Objectivism does not support anarchism, but a proper form of government outlined in Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal. That's the inconvenient part of sticking to principles in a philosophy. Sometimes it's hard I think this issue is one of those hard ones where we do not get the luxury of saying, hang it! we have a problem and I want to plug the hole in the dam. The dam may just sprout other leaks. Ok, ok done with the analogies.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago
              Hopefully by now you have realized where I stand and that I am no longer conflicted over this. It is entirely possible that I missed some of yours and DB's earlier statements. And the points that I saw, that you just put all in one place, were scattered throughout at least 4 posts and hundreds of comments, a lot of which were off topic or just distracting.

              I admitted to my pragmatism and to put it clearly, for the record, I never had a logical argument for my contradictions. Hell, I didn't even realize I had contradictions until I heard you on the radio. then there was continued commenting on a page that I can't even find now. Not too sure how I got there in the first place. But it got me interested and thinking. I tried to follow it but it went everywhere. I tried my usual approach when I'm stumped, find the go-to guys and see what they're saying. but by then they were already frustrated and not answering well. that's where I had to jump in and start asking questions.

              I think it was the concept of imprisoning someone to the entire rest of the world that was the hardest to figure out. I didn't get what I needed from DB's article. Remember, you guys live this topic. I've been to Canada once. Twenty years ago. You accept it as simple. You take it for granted. I had to go through the process. Now I'm glad I did.

              I only tell you all this to make this point; There is a small group of people I look for on issues that stump me. I don't usually need to ask questions, someone usually clears things up nicely before I need to. But I'm the majority on this site and this subject wasn't easy for me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago
          The issue of public thoroughfares is neither as simple nor as self-evident as you suggest. Ayn Rand had very little to say on the subject other than streets and roads should be “privately owned and privately run.” This is one of several topics that need to be further developed in order for there to be a coherent Objectivist position on the subject, and for us to be able to advance from theory to practice.

          Just looking at issues addressed in your response above, here are some questions that need to be resolved. Must a road owner make his property and services available to the entire “public” (all the people outside of your private property), or can he exclude certain people? If he retains the right to exclude certain people, and all roads are privately owned, does the term “public thoroughfare” have any valid meaning in an Objectivist society? To what extent can the owner make and enforce rules of conduct for people using his road? How much flexibility does he have to modify or suspend the rules if external conditions change? Can contracts (such as easements) be made and enforced that bind all future owners of the road and adjacent land?

          The above questions and dozens of others need to be examined and discussed in light of Objectivist principles related to law, politics, economics and individual rights. The fact that many principles are clear does not mean that their application is self-evident. It’s anything but “a simple affair until government gets involved.” And even in an Objectivist society, governments will legitimately get involved from time to time, in order to enforce contracts and settle disputes related to the use of the roads. It’s one of the core functions of a proper limited government.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
            Doesn't necessarily answer every conceivable question, but I think this is a good start:

            Public Thoroughfare I think of as one built and operated by a government. The free market would have private Toll Roads.

            Reply to kevinw above:
            "It's your toll road, operate it however you want and face and accept the consequences, except that you're not allowed to initiate force to your customers.
            Customers will decide if they want to go through your conditions, or find another route, or a competitor will offer different conditions for use that draw your dissatisfied customers away."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 2 months ago
    So if you obtain property rights in land because you made it productive, what do we do about Nevada? Either the government owns 84% of Nevada or no one does. Or possibly the Indians.

    So how does someone ever get possession of property in Nevada? Who would issue a title and by what right. And, I would argue, that if you have the right to issue clear title to land, then you own it. If it is the government that we acknowledge as having that right, then we acknowledge that the government currently owns it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 10
      Posted by  $  Flootus5 4 years, 1 month ago
      Actually the figure is 87% federal control. But it is not as simple as that. When we say that the feds "own" 87% of Nevada we are not yet saying which government has jurisdiction over these lands.

      In 1956 Eisenhower ordered his administration to conduct an inventory of federal jurisdictions. A huge tome was then declassified in 1963. What it shows is flabbergasting. Federal jurisdictions stemming from land ownership is very limited. In my home county of Elko (northern Nevada) the feds have exclusive jurisdiction of ----- a third of a square mile. That is the parcel that the Post Office is on. This stems from Article I, Clause 8, Section 17, known as the Enclave Clause of the US Constitution.

      Elko County, like the rest of the State of Nevada is dominantly public land. Ostensibly the feds owns these public lands, but as a proprietor only, like everyone else, and is subject to the laws of the State of Nevada. This is in the Eisenhower report.

      But it is still not even that simple. With Nevada's enabling act for Statehood in 1864, the State agreed to relinquish claim to the unadjudicated public lands to the feds. Hence the feds claim to ownership as a proprietor. The intent was that the feds would provide mechanisms to privatize to individuals via Homestead Acts, Desert Land Entry Acts, Stone and Timber Acts, Mining Acts, etc. The intent was entirely based upon the original US philosophy that resources are best managed through private ownership by individuals. This more or less proceeded fairly orderly for the next 100 or so years. But then, in response to the ever escalating progressive calls for collectivization - that the public lands "belong to all us" -- the onslaught rise of the federal leviathan culminated in the passage of FLPMA in 1976. This Act for the first time purported to say that the feds will retain these lands in perpetuity. A reversal and betrayal of what was essentially a trust fund ultimately intended for the people as individuals.

      This started the first Sagebrush Rebellion that in Nevada culminated in the Nevada Revised Statutes series 321 passed in 1979 and 1980 by the State legislature and signed into law. This statute laid State claim to all the public lands in the State of Nevada in the interest of individual US citizens. Privatization mechanisms would continue with similar means of disposing resources by proofs of beneficial use. This is actually based upon the US Constitutions Equal Footing Doctrine. This is very simple. Any new States admitted to the Union are admitted on an equal footing with the original 13 States. The original 13 did not have federal public lands. The States have merely to exercise their sovereignty.

      The principal is simple. The history of obfuscation leading us to our current predicament in Nevada and other public lands states is horrendous and is the subject of a book I have been writing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
        Thanks for the clarification and elaboration. I knew that Nevada was pretty bad and picked up the 84% out of a quick Google search.

        Could you clarify the distinction between Federal jurisdictions via land ownership and the public lands as proprietor? In your opinion, how does this ownership differ from that of a private group such as a corporation?

        ed: I will say that I wholeheartedly approve of moving the vast majority of the currently unused land into private hands so that it can be productively used. Unfortunately the 'Greens' want exactly the opposite.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 years, 2 months ago
      Government control of land in Nevada, Alaska, etc. is not "ownership" in the usual sense of property rights ownership, it's statist control (and so was the tribalist control of the Indians, who did not recognize private property rights in land either). You can't as a practical matter claim unowned land in Nevada only because the government does not permit it. Until the last part of the 19th century when progressives took over, unsettled land in the west could be claimed.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 2 months ago
        But the land could be claimed because the government allowed it to be claimed and would give you title to it, which you could then use to document your ownership.

        And, while it's not a particularly objectivist approach, the reason the government could do this is because they sent armed soldiers to move other people out of the way so that you could claim the land.

        If I am acknowledged to be the one who can give you title to the land that no one will contest, it seems to me that I 'own' the land. And if the government can give you that title, then it own's the land. You cannot simultaneously say the government doesn't own the land and that it has the authority to give you title to it.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 2 months ago
          I understand that at least some disagree with the concept, the negative points make that clear, but I would like someone to clarify how a governmental entity which does not own property can nevertheless give a title to it to an individual or corporation. Clearly there is some basis of control. There is only one government who can do that, you can't, for example, get the government of Nicaragua to give you a title to Northern Nevada, the United States owns, or controls, that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 4 years, 2 months ago
            "Giving title" means acknowledging and recording the title, not giving the property. It would have made no sense for individuals to arbitrarily make competing claims for arbitrary amounts of land under anarchy. The role of the government in the settling of the unowned land in the west was for an orderly procedure of settlement in accordance with objective rules, within the geographical jurisdiction of the government. It could do that because it was the government enforcing property rights law, not because it gave away land. Jurisdiction does not mean ownership. The government did not "send armed soldiers to move other people out". Wandering tribes of warrior Indians had no legitimate claim to exclude individual settlers on the land. Individual Indians who chose to live under civilized law as individuals had the same rights as other settlers, and some did so. Most chose to remain primitive tribalists.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
              To my mind if you are the universally recognized entity that can grant title to a piece of property, you own it. I understand that philosophically you don't want the government to own property, you have to face the objective reality that they do. No one else does and no one else can unless the government grants it to them under the terms the government specifies.

              I have no problem with the government owning property if the government is acting as an agent of its citizens as a corporation acts as an agent of its shareholders.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                To your mind you are wrong. It's not a matter of what anyone "wants". Government action is not ownership. Government control is not ownership. Government jurisdiction is not ownership. Acknowledging and recording title to land ownership is not government ownership. The fact of government coercion is not an ownership right. Your confusion is not an expression of objective reality. Government "ownership" is a misuse of the term "ownership" not to be taken literally. Government control of the land claiming to be on behalf of the "people" is a socialist invalid concept of "ownership".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                  You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                    "That word", property "ownership", does not equate government control with property rights of the individual.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                      But we also have joint property rights with individuals banding together to form a corporation. In that case it isn't an individual either. A government owning property is entirely analogous to a corporation owning property with the citizens taking the place of shareholders.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                        A corporation is a voluntary association of individuals jointly owning property and acting in accordance with their rights. Government is not a corporation. Government is limited in what it can and must do because it is set up as a monopoly to use physical force to defend the rights of the individual. Government officials who act by "right" are tyrants. Citizens of a nation are not "shareholders". Your arbitrary package deals ignoring essential distinctions between ownership rights and government control are not convincing.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                          I didn't say government officials had any authority other than that delegated by the citizens.

                          I understand a government is not a voluntary association. But either you have anarchy or you have a government constituted in some manner. That government will carry out its duties in line with the guidance of someone.

                          Either that someone is it's citizens or it's random groups of people around the planet, but someone has to be responsible for directing the actions of the government. As you say, government officials have no right to act on their own. Who tells the government what to do?
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 1 month ago
                            Your point was that Government "owning property" is analogous to a corporation owning property. It is not the same due to the nature of government explained above. By equating the two, you are incorrectly implying that government has the "right to own property".
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                              Is it then your opinion that the government can absolutely own nothing? Not a building, a desk, a pencil? Nothing?

                              If you believe that the government has some purpose, and Rand definitely did, then there must be some facilities that are owned by the government.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                                The government does not have property rights. It does not act by right. It controls property that it must use to for limited functions it must perform. It cannot buy, sell and use property any way it wants. It's "ownership" is not by right of property ownership. Governments do not have rights. Only individuals can have rights.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 1 month ago
                                  Agreed, and simply stated.

                                  It's damaging to our rights when this critical distinction is wiped out by oversimplified analogies. A proper government's ability to act is granted and limited by its citizens, not (as you point out) by "right"—not based on the freedom to act as required by its nature.

                                  Perpetuation of all the stolen concepts and other contradictory packaged ideas that personify "Government" make it easier for government officials and employees to overstep their tasked responsibilities and further erode the property rights they should be protecting.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by conscious1978 4 years, 1 month ago
                                Government control or jurisdiction, in regard to property, is not the same as individual property rights. Government employees cannot properly exercise their individual property rights in the function of their governmental responsibilities like employees or shareholders of a corporation. Those employees and officials are only tasked with protecting those rights, not exercising them.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                                  Clearly government employees cannot whimsically utilize resources that they have management of, although truth be told they often do. That still doesn't mean the government doesn't own it, just that what government officials are allowed to do with government property is limited

                                  Keep in mind, I am not saying that Government should be able to act independently of their charter as a free individual might.

                                  The key thing is that you can point to any rock and say "who owns that rock"? And some entity does. If you want that rock, only that entity can give it to you. Sometimes it's the government.

                                  What the Government can do with it's rocks is limited. And it should have no more than necessary to fulfil it's function.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment deleted.
            • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
              I am trying to reconcile the historical reality of how the government came to be in possession of the land and how our titles derive from what was an act of aggression. It's a distasteful reality, but a reality none the less.

              Many stalwart Objectivists are trying to fit the reality of what happened into an objectivist philosophy and the results don't quite make sense -- at least to me.

              I think one has to face the reality of what happened and move on. That the government should sell as much of the land it holds into private hands leaving only as much as it needs.

              As to the property tax meaning that you only rent your land. I think that is a false equivalence. The government can seize your property for almost anything. It doesn't have to be property tax. Obviously I don't approve of that.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                That is pragmatism. The Objectivist are trying to maintain the importance of basic principles in the face of several people wanting to compromise them or just no understanding them. Chief amongst those is that all men are individually free.

                The realities that you refer to that we face today are there, only as a result of the general we that let them become such, by compromising those essential principles.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 1 month ago
                Our current government gained in situ ownership from grants originally given by, purchased from, or conquest of lands claimed by European monarchs and emperors. If you look at the original grant for the state of Georgia, for example, the English king gave the rights to the colonists from the Atlantic shore to the Pacific (regardless of any other claims by other monarchs). Jefferson negotiated the purchase of the Louisiana territories from Napoleon. The Western territories were part of land taken as a result of the war with Mexico in 1846. Any grants for private ownership descended from claims made on North American territories by monarchs, claiming their right of ownership as granted them by God. Technically, there never were any "unclaimed" lands since this continent came to the attention of European explorers, funded by their respective monarchs.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
                  This is not about history, it is about what is the correct philosophical principle
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                    Much of the actual history of the settlement of the country was in accordance with correct principles despite the sordid history of those who tried to prevent the individualist claims of land ownership.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 1 month ago
                    Attempts to establish states in accordance with "Correct philosophical principles" are what usually end in violent conflict and non-compliance with those principles. Witness the Communist revolution that led to the USSR.

                    Much of the purist Objectivist declarations I see sound much like the arguments of "sovereign citizens" and Anarchists. Long on philosophy, but short on reality. The "sovereigns" do resort to violence to try to put their principles into effect, and much of the statements about how to create a "pure" Objectivist state sound much the same.

                    I may be labelled a "pragmatist" by the purists on this site, but I think that I'm trying to envision a way to instill what I regard as admirable Objectivist goals in the real world. I think of myself as a "practicalist."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 4 years, 1 month ago
                      What a bunch of nonsense. The US was founded on correct philosophical principles The problem with the USSR was not that it tried to follow philosophical principles, it was that it had the wrong philosophical principles.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by not-you 4 years, 1 month ago
                  The Massachusetts Bay Company was a joint stock trading company chartered by the English crown in 1629 to colonize a vast area in New England extending from 3 mi (4.8 km) miles north of the Merrimack River to 3 mi miles south of the Charles River. It was quickly taken over by a group of Puritans, under the leadership of John Winthrop, who wished to establish a religious community in the New World......http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/m...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 4 years, 1 month ago
                  The jurisdiction of the US government over dispensing unclaimed land in the west to settlers was not based on European grants under God or anyone else. The Kings' grants of land in the earlier colonies were historically nullified or otherwise wrested from their control and eventually ignored as irrelevant.

                  Unclaimed lands in this context means unclaimed ownership, not improper political claims by previous statist governments subsequently thrown off the continent..
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 years, 1 month ago
                    This government still recognizes grants given to individuals under the Spanish crown to settle land disputes in the Western states.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by Zenphamy 4 years, 1 month ago
                      I think that's only true for lands after the Texan/Mexican war and cover Texas, South Eastern New Mexico. I think Texas insisted on it for the Tejanos that had joined them in their fight.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 4 years, 1 month ago
                        The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo included all the territory, although it wasn't enthusiastically adhered to. For example in California people with land grants had a limited time to prove clear title from either Spain or Mexico. It wasn't automatic.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 4 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 4 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    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."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by a59430802sojourner 4 years ago
    This is not about property rights; however it does address unlawful immigration. First offense without committing any other crime: Charge with felony and sent to prison,(prison being deported to anywhere outside the US and its territories); wait ten years and lawful application can be made for immigration and when approved the felony is dropped; return to US or its territories prior to lawful immigration is an escape from prison and can be shot on sight. Charged with crime when in the US or its territories: Automatic felony and sent to prison as outlined above with no possibility of returning lawfully; and again escape from prison may be shot on sight.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo