I had read the one on self-defense, but had not read the link on "Self-Determination of Nations". As usual, Rand was right.

I do not understand how anyone cannot recognize a country's right to exist. When the colonists declared their independence from Britain, they recognized that right.

Government has always been in the business of taking or restricting rights. Not granting them.

we all need a solid class in property rights. yes, that includes K. :)

"Right and your answer is to use force on anyone who want to cross the border."

Correct.

Again from the lexicon entry on "Self-Defense" - "The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement." - Ayn Rand.

"Your logic says I have to have permission to move"

Correct to a point.
If are you saying that your claim of "right to move" trumps Rand's claim of
right to self-determination of a free society, then I disagree.

"[I] want to exclude people because of the accident of where they were born,"
Absolutely untrue, and I challenge you to cite where I have stated as such.

"or some other class category"
Yes. Marxists need not apply.

"which can only be done by violating everyone's rights"
How? Rational immigration policy has existed for years here and elsewhere long before it was broken here.

"people you consider undesirable"
Such as "moochers" and "looters"...

You have called my arguments "collectivist" without doing me the courtesy of actually asking me to elaborate.
Would it be unfair if I responded in kind and called your arguments utopian?

Right and your answer is to use force on anyone who want to cross the border. The logic is straight forward. Your logic says I have to have permission to move. That is so anti-freedom as to be absurd. The basis of your argument collectvist - you want to exclude people because of the accident of where they were born, or some other class category, which can only be done by violating everyone's rights not just these people you consider undesirable

But the individual right, the right to private property, is implemented by the Fed Gov, on behalf of the States (on behalf of the people of each State) in the form of a regulated border. Once inside the border legally, by asking, you can move and associate with whoever you wish. Why should your desire to want to see someone or that someones desire to want to see you ignore the property rights of 320 million Americans, as implemented by our border. Why is it a violation of the ones individual right to travel to have to ask to enter into private property and reveal basically why he/she is here, how long he/she intends to stay?

I wouldn't walk into your yard, use your grill (I'll bring my own beef) and pitch a tent without first asking you.

If you, Slug and I lived next to each other and decided, even though our properties are individually walled, to build a wall with a grand gate encompassing all three of our properties, all that space between our houses would become private property, no?

No, I am not misusing the term "rights". I disagree with Objectivism on its definition of rights in this respect. A country, as the embodiment of its citizens, has some of the same rights that its individual citizens have, such as the right to defend itself when attacked.

Dale, I respectfully refer you to the Ayn Rand lexicon entries for "Self-Determination of Nations" and "Self-Defense"

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/sel...

"The right of 'the self-determination of nations' applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom" - Ayn Rand in which she acknowledges a right applicable both to a nation and to a society.

"A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever." - Ayn Rand, in which she specifies that rights apply to citizens.

"In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use." - Ayn Rand in which she recognized a value upon which the individuals of a society agree, i.e. "civilized".

No they do not have rights, they have the duty to protect the individual rights of people within their borders. That is their only legitimate function. This was the foundation of the US and objectivism. You are misusing the word "rights."

AJ the full answer requires a lot more time and effort and a fuller understanding of property rights. I will try write this up and start a separate post

The answer on the 50 states is clearly no Governments do not have rights. The only thing a government can do legitimately is protect people's individual rights. Everyone voting to exclude someone I want to interact with violates both my rights and the person who wants to interact with me.

Free Assembly does not include the right to exclude. It only gives the right to freely assemble

Regardless of whether anyone else takes the position that countries have rights, I will take the position that countries DO have rights.

1) Countries have the right to exist.
2) Countries have the right to establish and defend their own borders.
3) Countries, as empowered by their citizens through the legislative process, have the right to establish laws regarding unacceptable conduct. When those laws become excessive, the citizens have the right to take that power away, or to leave.

Those rights are the embodiment of the thoughts and actions of those who fought (word chosen carefully) to earn those rights. These rights are not inalienable. They must be defended from tyrants, looters, moochers, and even people who seem to think that fences or walls mean nothing. If a person will not honor the property rights of a country who puts up a fence or a wall around their country, that person will also not honor the fences or walls that individual citizens put up around their individual properties. A person who does not honor fences or walls must be treated as a ... looter (meant in the traditional, rather than in the Atlas Shrugged sense). I have no tolerance for looters, nor moochers.

Honestly that is disingenuous. You state that countries have rights? People born in a certain place have rights? That paying taxes means you can violate other peoples rights?

This discussion is outrageous. You have been provided a valid pro-freedom, objectivist solution to any valid immigration concerns, but you go on with your collectivist justifications for violating other people's rights.

My microphone and headset are in the shop for repairs, so I couldn't listen in.

You know that I respect and appreciate what you say, but I have to ask again how the right to travel you speak of jibes with private property? If someone can come and go on and off your property as they please how is your property private? How is that property, and anything on that land, yours? By extension the US is the private property of the 50 States and every citizen represented by those States, no? Does not the right of private property give the owner(s) of that property the authority to regulate who comes and goes on and off that property? If not, is there really private property all? And if there is no property that is private how is that not the position of classical communism?

Again, I'm speaking about how this topic applies to reality and not theory. I am attempting to understand where you're coming from without condoning the national ID cards, search and frisk, the TSA, or the NSA turning their attention toward the American people.

Dale, please cite specifics so I can address them.

Thank you.

All men are created equal under the law, all men have certain inalienable rights - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Not according the host.