The right to travel means the freedom to travel, not an entitlement to be transported. If your right to travel is abrogated you are literally imprisoned.

The other method will be to start over after the collapse of this nation. And unless people are willing to make the systemic changes necessary, that collapse will come. Furthermore, it will come not just to this nation, but will affect the rest of the world as well. It may even be that Europe collapses first and drags us with it - we can certainly see the economic and social problems in those nations.

I do not doubt that at some point in the next 20-30 years we are going to have to face an existential conflict. On its face it will be a war with Islam, but at its heart it will be about freedom vs slavery. The question will be whether or not enough people are willing to stand up for freedom across this world and reject the slavery and oppression embodied and embraced and supported by everyone from bankers to one-world idealists to religious zealots. And mark my words, but we will have to fight for our rights - not with words, but with force.

I've lost my mind's eye so many times now... ;)

Well said.

The plain bizarre quotes and misrepresentations are from your own posts. We don't know we are separate from the universe only after identifying "skin" as a "boundary" and then "deeming" that the "inside" is "controlled" by one's own mind. We start by being conscious of reality and realizing that there is a self that is conscious. You don't walk around yourself looking for "boundaries" before you can realize that you are not the rest of reality. Your rambling rationalizations are truly bizarre and not the "very first principle of Objectivism" as "existence: separate and distinctly recognizable from other entities". That doesn't even make sense.

Well said

This conversation is on topic in regard to the original post, “What Rand said about the rights of nations.” I see no need to start a new post, you may do so if you wish.

You say “No individual has ownership of the land you discuss . . .” However, Ayn Rand says, “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) She also says a government has “the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task.” (The Virtue of Selfishness.) She also says that “’public property’ is a collectivist fiction.” (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal)

Taken together, these statements by Ayn Rand fully support my contention that no one can cross the border into an Objectivist country, unannounced and uninvited, without violating the property rights of one or more of that country’s citizens.

You're going to have to show me where in the Constitution of this country, where "he is on property the control of which was specifically ceded to the government by its citizens to carry out specific functions for the benefit of the citizens that authorized it". The government, at all levels, is a creation of man and as such has no inherent or unalienable rights, none.

No individual has ownership of the land you discuss and therefor had or has no right to cede to government what was never his in the first place.

That's enough of this conversation. Time for a new post if you wish to continue a discussion on this topic.

If you think that Ayn Rand would have upheld and defended the "right" of Soviet agents to enter and travel freely around America, that's your conclusion, not hers. And you haven't yet shown where an unannounced stranger can exercise his "right to travel" once he has crossed the border. If the country is governed by Objectivist principles, the stranger is either on private property without permission (trespassing), or he is on property the control of which was specifically ceded to the government by its citizens to carry out specific functions for the benefit of the citizens that authorized it. The stranger cannot claim the right to be on this type of property either. So he is violating property rights simply by the act of crossing the border. This is the reason that government border checkpoints would be necessary and appropriate even in a society based on Objectivist principles.

CBJ; No one, of any note, has ever tried to list every individual, natural, human right without getting to the realization that they are innumerable. The writers' of the Constitution understood that principle, and rather than attempt to word one that listed every individual right, they gave all rights, listed or not, to the individual, called 'positive rights' and gave to government only a limited and defined list of rights, called negative rights. What Rand did was to ask and answer the question of from what does the right originate and at the same time develop the morality of human life that with proper understanding, could formulate the right for any context.

To fully grasp the right to travel, one has only to begin at AR's nature of man and from that move into an Objectively moral man acting in society (with other men). Rand fully understood and expected that, rather than having to list and explain every right imaginable, that one followed the same path of rational and logically reasoned thought that she had, comes to the same conclusion. It's just not that complicated. Its a little like having to understand axioms before you can move beyond arithmetic into mathematics.

If you put as much effort into understanding Rand's thought development as you seem to in finding one of her conclusions that you don't like, then trying to twist her logic around to fit your preconceived beliefs, you might discover the world of free men.

No, but re-read my post. Many things that I pointed out Ayn Rand did not say are being bandied about here as if they are Objectivist gospel. Such as an unrestricted right to immigration and subsequent “freedom of travel” by anyone, including spies, saboteurs and terrorists. I’m certain that Ayn Rand would never have endorsed such ideas, and I explained my reasons for thinking so in my post above and in previous posts.

Rand did not say pigs could fly. Does that mean we should think she saw flying pigs?Rand did not say a lot of things. Does that mean all those things are magically here?

As you stated in another thread:
"If you have a counter to anything within my comment, please reply."

I think what we can conclude, is that a refresher on reading comprehension might be a timely and appropriate, along with further study of AR's writings and public statements.

I got it. Thought it was funny. Even gave you a +1 for the injection of humor.
I just took it a step further. Your turn.

"It's all fun & games till someone loses an eye."

Here’s what I learned and deduced from Ayn Rand’s Ford Hall Forum speech of 1973:

Ayn Rand did support an open immigration policy.
Ayn Rand did say that the potential for economic competition was not a valid reason to restrict immigration.

Ayn Rand did not say that immigration to America (or any other specific country) is a right.
She did not say that everybody is entitled to immigrate, regardless of criminal history, health status (such as having an infectious disease), ability to financially support oneself (or obtain support from a sponsor), or ties to terrorists or dictators.
She did not say that the government has no right (and no responsibility to its citizens) to investigate the background or current status of persons wishing to immigrate.
She did not say that the U.S. government assumes an unchosen obligation to uphold and protect the rights of anyone who shows up here, regardless of circumstances.

Based on everything we know about her personal history and political ideology, we can reasonably infer that Ayn Rand likely would have supported a system that would have encouraged legal immigration by anyone meeting reasonable qualifications following a thorough background check by the government.

She would likely not have supported a policy of wide-open borders without government checkpoints, especially since such a policy would have permitted unrestricted access to America by agents of the country from which she had escaped.

I did put a winking smiley face on it, so I thought people would get that it was a joke.

Oh, come on! Everybody knows Jupiter is not a god. The Flying Spaghetti Monster would never allow that. :))

I think we have both summed up our positions nicely. There is only one statement of yours that I would like to explore further, as I think it could lead to dire consequences if fully implemented.

You say, “As to bad individuals that come into the country, until Objective, rationally verified evidence is obtained that the bad individual is in the process of, begins to, or has committed an offense, no one has a right to deny him his natural rights.”

If this policy were adopted and strictly implemented, it would allow an ISIS leader and any number of his followers to enter and travel around the country unhindered, openly or covertly, as long as they appeared to remain peaceful. And even if the government became aware of their existence and their beliefs, it would not be able to effectively monitor their activities to obtain “rationally verified evidence” of criminal intent, lest their 4th Amendment “rights” be violated. The results would likely be catastrophic. I don’t think that a nation exhibiting any semblance of rationality and desire for self-preservation would permit its government to even consider adopting such a policy.

I appreciate your explanation.
First, I think we're confusing or conflating some terms here that are getting us into much of these disagreements. A nation/state is not a government and vice versa. It is a geographical/political/cultural area. It's a creation of man, but can have no rights. It's not alive and not a man.
A proper government is created by the people of such an area for the purpose of providing uniform and objective retaliatory force against those that use force to infringe on a man within the government's jurisdiction. The only proper 'prevention' it does or 'safety' it provides is through the assurance that it will apply Objective retaliatory force to those that try to or do infringe.
As to property, the government, since it is not an individual man cannot have a property right. Only the individual can have that, and to the public property you imply, which individual owns that property which he has asked the government to protect.
As to citizens, they are merely individuals that their fellows have agreed that have authority to vote, but he has no more rights than does any other man. There are many other people within the area called a nation.
As to bad individuals that come into the country, until Objective, rationally verified evidence is obtained that the bad individual is in the process of, begins to, or has committed an offense, no one has a right to deny him his natural rights.
That is the basis of the founding of this country--that the individual had unlimited and unalienable rights and the only source of jurisdiction and authority for those in government, while acting as government, was those specifically given it by the individuals that place themselves subject to such authority.
I've already listed Rand's statement of immigration restriction earlier in this post. She was adamant that she didn't agree to it.

I consider myself an Objectivist and my conclusions above are derived directly from Objectivist principles. I believe that Ayn Rand would agree with my interpretation, although of course there is no way to know for sure.

Really? Doesn't that refer to the god Jupiter? I thought that would be too mystical for Gulchers. ;)

The nation of Hungary can only have rights granted to it by it's people and properly, those are retaliatory force against those that use force against the rights of it's people, the people within it's jurisdiction. The individuals of Hungary have no moral responsibility to 'help' anyone unless they individually determine that it's in their own self-interest to do so.

There can be no moral right to deny others the right to life or travel, but there's no need to build a fence. If there are enough individuals that determine it's in their self-interest, OK---if not the refugees will go back home or move on to somewhere else.

I agree with your interpretation, but I doubt Rand and other Objectivists would. I guess that makes me a non-Objectivist. I am OK with that. I think that your interpretation is more rational.