The Gulch is/was/will be private property. Property rights invoke an entire mass of well defined laws and regulations, where exclusionary authority has legal force and precedent already. Without the cloak of property rights, exclusionary authority becomes much more nebulous. This is why property rights are so important.

Freedom of Association (right to peaceably assemble). Exclusion is an obvious corollary, however the legal system has been ruling inconsistently at best on this.

There are six enumerated aspects/clauses in the first amendment, 3 of them are actively under attack in the courts or in the culture or both.

Free exercise of religion
Peaceably Assemble
Petitioning of governmental redress of grievances

Those three aspects are actively under attack.

When someone fails to follow basic logic and ignores the basic ideas of objectivism - yes it is, because it is fact.

Sorry JB, respectfully, I have some issues with this. To wit..

1. Countries have the right to exist - on what authority? How many countries throughout history have been conquered and absorbed or destroyed. Carthage springs to mind, as does Babylonia. Countries come into existence through strife historically. They tend to end the same way.

2. See 1 - establishing and defending borders comes down to force, which was also how they become established initially, and how they end.

3. Many countries do not recognize or grant any rights to their citizens through legislative processes, at least that we would recognize as such. Depending on the place, slavery might still exist, which of course removes any of what we would call rights. Chattel rights are always limited.

Citizens do not always have the rights to either take over or leave. When there is no hope of anything approaching force parity, the citizens cannot effectively fight back, strangling that option.

The right to leave becomes problematic on several fronts. if the country you are trying to flee keeps you in place with force (East Germany, Russian states, etc) fleeing is difficult. If other countries do not allow you in, fleeing is effectively impossible, especially if they repatriate you when they catch you.

The second half of your post I agree with more or less. But you left out the bit about the citizens of the country in question ignoring their own laws. Where do they fall then? Looters? Moochers? Naive?

"All of our work in here just down the fucking drain"
I seriously doubt that.

"I cannot take another show like that."
We are always looking for other talent to do their own show.
Seriously, this is an option.
interrupted@galtsgulchonline.com

"It was awful today"
I'm sorry you think so.

A couple of of points on that:
1) “When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” - Ayn Rand
2) This is a link to Howard Roarke's defense speech in the movie The Fountainhead. In it, Roarke explicitly qualifies the word "truth" with "his". Three times. The point being: not even Ayn Rand got her language consistently correct. But, I'm sure, if anyone had taken the time to approach her in a civil manner and ask, she would have been happy to clarify her point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5YA...

Correct.

However, I was talking about Freedom of Association, another First Amendment right, which does include the right to exclude.

If it did not, then please explain to me why the Gulch in Atlas Shrugged was:
1) By invite only
2) Set in a remote location
3) Camouflaged from discovery
4) Peopled by those who:
a) were concerned about how to handle trespassers (Dagny)
b) used the word trespassers
c) flew Dagny out blindfolded
d) requested that she tell no one of the location

Zen, please see the Ayn Rand Lexicon entries on "Self-Determination of Nations", "Self-Defense", "National Rights".

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

Yes, Zen, I invite you to listen to yesterday's show and decide for yourself the points I made.

Zen, please don't conflate the terms I used. I said nothing about freedom to travel to another country, although nations can and do restrict that right. I was talking about the freedom to migrate.
Travel implies visit.
Migrate implies staying.

"You crossed the border into Wyoming, did the good people of Wyoming suggest that by doing so you were attacking them?"

Yes, I did. And yes, there are people here who are leery of so many East Coaster refugees moving in. They call it "The East Infection". I do my best to let each one know that I moved because I share their values and that if I want to petition the local government for change, it is the same change for which they themselves are petitioning.

More to the point of your argument;
1) "absurdity" is an ad hominem: you are completely dismissing that I might have any kind of a point to make. I would appreciate if you would approach me in a more civil manner.
2) The borders of Wyoming, Connecticut, and the rest of the states United States are open to each other because a law, presumably passed by the will of its citizens, has declared them to be so.
3) The United States and Mexico (and any other nation) are sovereign nations with agreed upon borders over which (presumably) the will of its citizens have agreed upon. So, yes, to claim that my desire to ignore the sovereignty of another nation is irrelevant because I choose I it to be is an attack. Wars have been fought over this.

A property right cannot be used to enslave someone. Property rights do not make a person a King or a tyrant. You are right that there is no conflict between properly understood property rights and the right to travel freely. Any two free people who want to meet cannot be prevented from doing so by other peoples property rights in land. I am going to put up a more detailed post on point.

It is the height of absurdity to suggest that you are being attacked by a free person moving about freely. You crossed the border into Wyoming, did the good people of Wyoming suggest that by doing so you were attacking them?

From the Ayn Rand lexicon, under National Rights:

A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. 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 is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and 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) . . . .

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.

“Collectivized ‘Rights,’”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 103

Db, calling such discussion outrageous because it doesn't meet your standard for Objectivism makes for bad broadcasting. It turns the forum into an echo chamber. What makes Galt's Gulch worth coming to is the fact that all ideas are thoroughly vetted. You are perfectly capable of arguing your points.

It is a sad reality that most people in the history of the world have been denied the right of the freedom to travel and have been consigned to slavery to their place of birth.

Of course. If you were to go through the constitution picking out phrases that the government at all levels ignores, my hot button would be...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or too the people.

Tenth Amendment - being run roughshod over since at least 1862.

It was awful today. I cannot take another show like that. All of our work in here just down the fucking drain

Omg if you would have heard the radio show today...

Yes.

You're creating and conflating a right that does not exist, government power/rights, with the source of all rights, Individual man and life. Private property rights are a corollary of the individual property right, not community or geo-politics.

That doesn't mean that is a government right. In fact, it is tyranny. The granting of rights turns them into privilege instead of rights. Only men have rights.

Private property is a corollary of the individual property right and does not extend nor conflate with communal or geo-political property. It is reality that if individuals are excluded from the freedom of travel, then they are consigned to slavery to their place of birth, and by doing so-they are denied individual liberty.

I'm continually frightened by people, particularly in this country, that don't (or won't) understand the freedom of travel as a critical and absolutely essential component of individual liberty, as critical as is the right to self defense. Without the freedom of travel, one is then nothing more than a slave to his place of birth and the governance of his birth place. If he is born in a desert, then one is forever destined to live his life and search for means of production within that desert.

But I guess these people haven't yet learned the significance of the difference between man and citizen. The founding documents of this country or the thoughts of Ayn Rand, do not restrict the recognition of unalienable rights to only American citizens, but instead emphasizes that all men have those rights through and by their existence, enumerated or not, and regardless of place of birth or locality of residence, and without regard to culture.

There can be no geo-political exclusionary power or right within a society of individual freedom. And attempting to conflate the individual property right with a communal property right denies individual rights that accompany birth. It is a total denial of Objectivism and the founding of this country of free men.

I am adding one right of a nation. It has the right to NOT be forced to immolate itself. Read the Ayn Rand Lexicon on altruism, substituting the word nation for either man or individual, and you will soon realize that nations have the right to exist for their own sake, just as individuals do.

From the nation's perspective, an immigrant is an unknown quantity. In its duty to protect the individual rights of people within their borders, they must examine the immigrant's background, reason for coming, etc. using a rational immigration policy that existed in America for many years. You are correct to a point in saying that, as an immigrant, you need permission to move. Eudamonia's explanation was complete on this point. This permission is meant to be a relatively straightforward process. I have gone through customs several times. It was inconvenient, but in the long run, it is a minor inconvenience compared to the peace of mind that comes from knowing that my nation is doing a nation's only legitimate function.

I wish I had remembered the Rand lexicon entry on Self-Defense when I got into this discussion with db and Kh a month ago. Eudamonia said in a sentence what I could not say so succinctly. "If you are saying that your claim of 'right to move' trumps Rand's claim of self-determination of a free society, then I disagree."