Eud; thanks for the references. I've read them. Ayn Rand's thoughts and her Objectivism are premised on the concepts of egoism and natural individual rights based on existence exists. All of that applies equally to all men. Any denial of any of that then leads inevitably to tyranny and the denial of your rights. It is impossible to parse rights of man to only some men and maintain your own.

And you'll note that the Constitution grants power to the government to determine the conditions of naturalization, but it says nothing about immigration or emigration, yet we've allowed the scare-mongering to convince us that the government's control is essential to our safety. Had we used our natural right of control or replacement of our government and government actors, we wouldn't have the problem this conversation is about.

Travel, visiting to me imply investigation while migration implies bettering one's situation and ability to survive. I understand that some misuse that 'movement', but that certainly can't be used as justification to enslave all others to their place of birth. If there's a fault, and there is, it's the government that needs to be controlled and restricted--not the individual simply wishing to better his life.

Yes j; and that's part of the greatness of Objectivism in that it recognizes the wrongness of that application of circumstance to regulate, control, and subjugate men.

The Gulch in AS is owned by Midas Mulligan and by agreement between him and John Galt is controlled as 'private property'. If you don't know where Midas's property rights come from and how they apply to his ownership and decisions about his property, you have a ways to go in the study and understanding of Objectivism.

Michael; You make a lot of comments and posts here in Galt's Gulch and I encounter and read many of them. While I appreciate your desire to participate in and contribute to the various conversations and issues being discussed as well as the many you wish to toss into the stream of discussion, I really wish you could concentrate a little more effort onto the topic of the discussion you enter and an equal effort into making some Objectivist sense.

One may purchase and otherwise obtain all of the writings and analysis of AR's thoughts and developed philosophy that one wishes, but that does not an Objectivist make. What ever you imagine an Island in the North Cook Islands, or the lands acquired by the idiots of Oregon, or the mentally deficient that would not only intentionally and knowingly drink poisoned KoolAid but also feed it to the children, you're so far off base as to be in a separate ball game in a separate league.

This is a site for people interested in Ayn Rand, her thoughts, her writings, and her philosophy of Objectivism--not for random, non-sequitur or other ludicrous inputs, or the accumulation of points based on just the addition of a post of stream of consciousness comment.

Maybe such contributors should contribute 'one gold dollar' per each non-Objectivist post or comment.

Regarding East Germany, Russia, etc., you are correct. One day in East Berlin plus a day driving through the largely barren East German countryside back to West Germany in 1984 was the eye opener of a lifetime for me. That was when I learned about restrictions on the right to travel. As objectionable as the passport and TSA systems are in this country, they were not within a factor of 50 of the oppression that I saw in East Germany.

I'll never forget going to the bathroom there. The bathroom had an attendant. I didn't know what on earth he was doing there until my friend said that I was supposed to tip him. I silently wondered why. I had to tip him for the privilege of having him watch me wipe my hindquarters with toilet paper so thin you could see through it and more abrasive than wiping with printer paper. THAT is a restriction on the freedom to travel. People in this forum may say that I am giving up liberty to get security if I say that I would be willing to tolerate pre-9/11 (or perhaps pre-1980) standard immigration security measures. Perhaps. That is a fair amount of security to gain with almost no loss of liberty. It sounds like a good value-for-value trade for me.

Today's security obviously is overdone and ridiculous. Just for the reaction, when asked to remove my shoes, I submit but only under the condition that the TSA agent must smell those shoes. ;)

All good JB.

I get lost in historical weeds sometimes. Lose track that the discussuin is philosophical rather than geopolitical.

I have several times over the past couple of years pointed out how I thought Rand was not being logical in her arguments. In disagreeing with me on this one, db, you are not arguing with me, but with Rand. Although I don't think your analogy holds because I do have the right to delegate my self-defense to either a private or government entity, I must applaud you for coming to your own conclusion, even when it is inconsistent with Objectivist orthodoxy.

But what is a public thoroughfare? You acknowledge the existence of such a thing but seem to think that the people who created and maintain it have no right to control its use.

I thought I did a solid job of defending my position, and still think so. The Ayn Rand Lexicon's section on national rights addresses your objections well.

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

When a country does not grant rights to citizens, let alone non-citizens, that nation is an outlaw.

Great sophistry - are you at all interested in logic and reason?

A little logic please. You do not have a right to stop a person from moving about on a public thourofare, therefore you cannot transfer that right to the nation.

You property rights are not unlimited and do not include the right to stop me at the border and be subject to a search and display of papers. When you insist they do, you are initiating force against me.

Conflating private property with government again. Second of all your private property rights are not unlimited and cannot make someone a prisoner.

You justifications are always based on a collective. No one put the words in your mouth.

"Respectfully - We have reached an area of fundamental disagreement Eud."

Yes, we have.

Thank you for your respect, it is returned in kind.

Respectfully - We have reached an area of fundamental disagreement Eud.

The situations are NOT parallel. Government in the Gulch, such as it was and what there was of it, was either a true direct democracy or a near anarchy. Likely dependent on what issue you were picking.

So in the case of immigration to the Gulch, immigrants were explicitly selected. Dagny was already selected, but chose not to accept membership at the time. She didn't necessarily realize she had been selected, but she knew people who had been once she trespassed.

Anyway, in her case as well as any foot trespassers, either every member of the Gulch could be directly asked on what to do about her or else a few people would decide for everyone with no consultation.

Everyone asked - direct democracy
Nobody asked - near anarchy since no titles/positions to make these decisions were ever explicitly stated.

Which? I don't think that can be determined from the minimal text on this in the book. Your opinion on that may differ.

In any case it is not relevant.

Dagny as trespasser is dubious. She was already on the list to be invited, she just found them before being asked. Found them through her own abilities I might add. She was an interloper, but not an unwelcome one.


Now the outside world, our government is an mishmash of part republic and part democracy. We also have a population of 320m and climbing.

We don't have someone or even a group of people making invitation lists for specific people to emigrate. We don't even have coherent policies about it.

How are these parallel?

Direct democracy hasn't been seen in the real world representing more than a few hundred or thousand people since the earliest days of Greek city-states as far as I am aware.

So if the Gulch is private property, who owns it? Is it owned by one person who sets the rules for everyone else. Is every inch owned by an individual person who decides who can step on it? How does one have freedom of travel and property rights at the same time?

"The initial discussion was not about the Gulch, it was about the wider world. Specifically, it started as a discussion on immigration, and policies regarding immigration."
Correct.

However, claims were made, quite strongly and without the courtesy of a request for clarification, that my conclusions were drawn from collectivism.

In response, I have provided relevant quotes from Ayn Rand and relevant events in Atlas Shrugged.

And, yes, the situations are parallel.

The initial discussion was not about the Gulch, it was about the wider world. Specifically, it started as a discussion on immigration, and policies regarding immigration.

The minimal government in the gulch is not what we are concerned with. It would be a much better situation for all of us if that is what we had, but with 320 million people and climbing, not what we have or are likely to be able to get to.

Unfortunately, the more people under the aegis of any given government, the larger and more bloated that government becomes. As the founders warned, once the people realize they can vote themselves things from the public treasury, they will do so.

Every new right or entitlement some politico comes up with and gets passed, increases the bloat and cost. And the bigger it grows, the more it feeds the corruption.

If we want to discuss and debate a Gulch government, lets have a thread about it. Dragging it into a discussion about immigration does no good, the situations are not parallel.

Tech, you addressed this in point in another thread, but I did not elaborate: "The Gulch is/was/will be private property."

Yes it was. Private property with a minarchist government: a system of courts whose job it was to execute the will of the individuals in the Gulch that contracts between individuals be honored. If someone decided to flout those minarchist courts they would be violating the rights of each of the members of the Gulch who delegated their authority to those courts.

Freedom of Association is an implied Constitutional right, yes.
But it was explicit in the Gulch as demonstrated by my previous points.