In Las Vegas, the city used it so much it got tossed out in Nevada courts. A cross country railroad would just have overpasses and underpasses to encourage business to use their railroad.

If I wanted to really hasten the demise of socialism, I would vote for Sanders. He will do it quickest, but frankly I dont want to live through the day by day destruction like Dagny and Rearden did. If the 'destroyer' came today, I would shrug at this point if I had enough money to live on until the end of my life

I didn't think Trump could actually say something that dumb. That's where "speaking off the top of your head" means not using your head.

read db's remarks above. For example, a private railroad building cross continent cannot keep people from crossing the railroad.

These is a difference between its original concept and how Trump uses it. Kelo would have never been supported originally. A proper govt would have almost 0 need to use it. It would rarely come up. That the Supreme Court upheld Kelo, shows how far gone property rights have become

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I understand the purpose of it, but, we know its use is driven by corporate interest and not public need.

I feel the Historical Societies need to declare any building over 50 years old historical and needing preserving is wrong. Or them telling you what color you can and can't paint your historical house because it isn't a period color.
When you pay the taxes on it,you can paint it any color you like.

Where's the line between preserving the past, progress and property rights?

Yes!

Trump is a looter in my opinion.

No one seems to say that the 2nd amendment was to protect US against our government becoming nazi like. The saving us from terrorists and thieves is a much smaller issue in my opinion.

I thought I just read he was in favor of guns. Maybe he switched sidea

Hillary wants all sorts of socialist things that will kill business, like the $15 minimum wage. She is NOT a bill clinton by any means. She did a horrible job as secretary of state, and she is politically correct to the point of hiding her own emails. Do we want a reincarnation of Nixon AGAIN.

I will vote for Paul, perhaps Carson, and Trump in that order. Whoever makes it through the media blitz. I suspect Paul and Carson wont make it thru the nomination. Hillary wanted Trump to run perhaps because she figured he was an easy person to beat. I think Trump vs Hillary would land us Trump. Anything but Hillary or Sanders.

Cruz is a religious zealot, as is Rubio, and to an extent Carson. The rest of the repubs are not even in the running.

Carson is anti-gun. That's a deal killer for me.

Mexico? I used to have a plant there and left. Its not a nice place unless you are rich enough to pay off the local officials and you keep your wealth buried somewhere in gold and silver. Its socialist, dude, 100%. Most south american countries are.

They just got rid of Maquiladoras (which is what I had), and they have a incoming duty from China over 20%. Not to mention their 10% VAT.

If Hillary or Sanders gets in, I am ready to leave. I am afraid no one on the Repub side other than Trump can beat the Democrat candidates. Not a very good set of choices.

hmm. My first pick would be Rand Paul, and perhaps Ben Carson (if he would shed that religiosity). But neither of them will ever be elected this time. The alternative would be Hillary or Sanders if the Repubs actually nominated Paul or Carson. Trump is the only one who has a chance to unseat Hillary (or Biden if he runs). Its scary.

I dont have a problem with you trying to be a super Objectivist. I am not a leftist, but I do recognize that an Objectivist is never going to be elected as president of the USA in 2016, given the state of the culture here. Your choice is to not vote at all, or probably get stuck with someone who is a lot worse than Trump. From a practical matter, I would rather slow down the decline than abstain. Its going to take too long for the population in this country to be even close to electing an Objectivist. By then I will be dead.

Hmmmm, similar to Homer's Odyssey, "nobody is violating his oath to the constitution."

I lived in NYC for 25 years when Trump was more local, and he was annoying then. All you need to do is look at his two supposed "empires": NYC real estate and NJ casinos to know he's had to be a crony capitalist and let's face it, borderline crook, to make that kind of money in those areas. Not to mention, the cronies being overwhelmingly Democrat. For all Carly's faults (if even true) at least she ran a great company that actually produced real things...

Hillary would not be any worse than Trump. In fact, the Clintons asked Trump to run.

It's got to be Paul, Cruz, or nobody.

Trump is more dangerous than many others when it comes to tolerable positions. He has a history, that precedes his campaign, of letting his mouth get ahead of his brain and a juvenile pettiness in public interactions. That, combined with his unprincipled Pragmatism, is why I hope others can see past the thin cloth of his 'business' attire.

Rand Paul might have some respect for individual rights, as might Ben Carson. But they arent going to be electable in this cultural climate. The rest of them have no "principled respect for individual rights" either, but they hide and manipulate. I think Trump will do less harm in a lot of ways and some definite good in others. Given the election is based basically on popularity and not principles, and we are in a culturally bankrupt society at present, I think the choice of Trump this time for 4 years is a better choice. I understand you hate him, but if he doesnt make it, you will wind up with one that is far worse. Imagine if Hillary gets elected.

The more he is politically incorrect and brings things our that should be considered, I say thats a good thing a president can do. He will also let us stand tall to other countries and not do what Obama has done. Tell me if the emperor has no clothes so I have something to think about out in the open. Who else talks about eminent domain or the trade relations with china or mexico, or immigration. He has my vote for 4 years anyway. After that, we will see.

I am not saying Trump is a philosophically correct Objectivist or even a libertarian. None of the candidates are. Some are better than others. BUT, given the choices we have for the next 4 years as president , I think its wise to pick the least bad.

I would say Rand Paul is the least bad, but he is not electable in this majority rules culture. Ben Carson is probably the next least bad, although the religiosity kind of bothers me (I dont know what his "god" is going to secretly tell him to do). Trump is the next in line, who at least brings up the subjects that our populace needs to really think about (no one else does that). Our culture has degenerated very far into non-thinking and socialism. If the people are going to eventually embrace freedom and private property, they have to start thinking and this debate will help with that. Its going to take a long time I suspect. The Trumps and Snowdens help a lot to keep the secret operations of government from getting out.

For THAT reason, I am going to vote in the order above for whoever makes to the general election. The rest of the group are either idiots or religious zealots. The democratic ones are total jokes.