for a second there, I thought you were talking to me :)
to silver, a proper govt protects your private property. it is not perfect-think about it-a lock on your front door is a deterrent-nothing more. an objective criteria for who or what is your greatest threat? illegals are FAR down the list. Look to your own govt-they threaten you HUGELY

dale can be short. He is an impatient man. so, please, do not let that deter you in this site. I know, I live with the man. Have fun and carry on!

K; I'm not intending to sound flippant or put off your question, but that discussion has gone on ad nauseum for the last 2 or 3 months. db offers a pretty good summation directly below and if you do a search for immigration, illegal immigration, etc you'll find a number of posts discussing the issue in depth.

There are even a number of Supreme Court cases, both US and state should you like to look at the issue in more depth.

sam; I suppose that I'm a good deal blunter and straight-forward than many others. In my younger days, I was once told by some friends that I didn't have any tact. My immediate response was to ask what that was. I can assure all that it's never the intent to hurt, embarrass, or intimidate another, I just prefer to get to the point without having to talk in circles with endless analogies and metaphors.
But I welcome an honest, open straight-forward conversation.

And thank you as well.

One point seems in order here. Reason is either valid with true premises or invalid with false premises. There is no Objectivist reason, communist reason, Christian reason, or reason of any other categories than valid or invalid. The hard part of reasoning is obtaining true premises and recognizing when the premises are false.
It might be said that faith is reason based on false premises since no effort is spent on verifying whether one's logic is valid with respect to objective reality. Reason should not be an automatic process of just having thoughts entering consciousness.

Please show me where I ever said "We own the United States." That was never my formulation. I was defending the individual rights of individual property owners against trespassing. If that makes me a "collectivist", so be it.

Yes it is exactly the same thing - you do not own and cannot decide who cross private property.

Yes I am a lawyer and that was my point, you cannot use private property in the way you say..


And no you are not consistent with Rand, the first thing she would tell you is that your very formulation (we own the United States) is collectivist.

I’m a collectivist because I agree with Ayn Rand’s definition of capitalism? This was a definition, not an offhand comment, and Ayn Rand was known to be precise in her definitions. If my defending property rights against trespassing is collectivist, then I’m in good company.

Regarding buying all the land around my house, check out the legal term “perpetual easement”. http://thelawdictionary.org/perpetual...

As to having your friend from Syria visit you, it’s not the same thing as showing up and/or crossing the border unannounced and uninvited. As I said earlier, “If a person is in fact invited by an existing property owner, that is a separate issue which is not part of this discussion.” Entering private property with permission of the owner is way different from entering it without permission. In neither case is it a “right”.

FYI- I have posted on here literally hundreds of times. I have disagreed with you exactly 3 times. How do I know that? You have called me a troll 3 times. Every time I disagree with you, I must be a troll. Not very intellectually honest is it? When I make a statement you can't or don't want to argue, you call me a troll.

I am not a troll, and take offense at that. You are incapable of accepting a different point of view. That is what a close minded person does. We were discussing illegal immigrants. They are not travelling through town. They are coming here to take advantage of the resources we have here that aren't available in their own country. You switch between travelling and immigrating to suit your purpose. There is a difference.
The Gulch I appreciate is open to discussion and dissent. Perhaps this Gulch doesn't have enough confidence in their beliefs to be able to tolerate differing opinions.

The right to travel is not "I pointed out that a country has finite resources. To live on someone else's property without regard to their property rights is taking from that person." That is so illogical a statement as to suggest that you are purposely evading the issue, which is what a troll does You do not add to the conversation when you do this.

Dishonest characterization -1

1) You can read my article. This is not a simple subject. Her statement that all property would be private, is shorthand and not necessarily true. It is also not the same thing as saying that all the land would be owned.

2) If I buy all the land around your house afterwards, you don't have a choice Property Rights are not unlimited - which is necessary for your argument. Again you need to study what property rights are, how they are gained, and what the limitations are. You cannot stop someone from flying over your property. Property rights cannot be used to stop people from traveling freely between their property and someone elses.

c) You are using the idea of Property Rights as a collectivist idea. As I pointed out even your formulation fails if I want to have my friend from Syria visit me. Of course you ignored the logic of this. Ultimately you are collectivist, pretending to be for Natural Rights.

This is actually exactly why I took a break from the Gulch. If you disagree with DB Halling, you are a neophyte that doesn't understand Objectivism. If you take that entire quite in context, I pointed out that a country has finite resources. To live on someone else's property without regard to their property rights is taking from that person.

That’s okay, I often read the hidden comments and assume others do also.

a) How is agreeing with Ayn Rand on a property rights issue inconsistent with Objectivism?
b) I would never buy a house that did not already have access rights. Neither would any other rational person.
c) How are the above comments totally inconsistent with objectivism and property rights?

1) Rand was incorrect, she was not an expert on law.

2) Yes you are trying to imprison people. According to you I could by all the land around your house and you could never leave or enter without my permission.

The absurdity of your position and your unwillingness to learn about property right and apply logic results in -1. The next comment will be hidden, because it is totally inconsistent with objectivism and property RIGHTS.

You do not understand objectivism or property rights. " To live somewhere involves taking resources from someone else."

Also, don't you think there is a difference between the "right to travel", and the "right to live wherever I want". To live somewhere involves taking resources from someone else. Even if they are purchased, those resources were purchased with ill gotten gains-i.e. wages earned through fraud.

"Your argument fails and it is an attempt to suggest that Natural Rights can be used to imprison people, which is absurd. "
So, what is the penalty for violating Natural Law? By your argument, Natural Law is a mere recommendation. And, what are property rights if not the right to exclude people from your property. And, if, as you stated, property rights do allow exclusion, what is to be the penalty for violating those rights?
Your argument is very self destructive. By your argument, a country does not have the ability to defend itself. It must allow all comers to enter. One of the only legitimate duties of government is to protect our borders. You absolutely can travel, but you must do it within the framework of laws set forth by the society where you want to travel.
Atlas was very clear on the right of the producers to decide who they would allow to travel to their Gulch. There are also several references in Atlas alluding to the dangers of letting the "Moochers" from the "People's States" to come to America. I think you are mixing your opinion with Rand's. She was quite clear, and her writing differs greatly from yours.

a) “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.” –Ayn Rand, What is capitalism?
b) A person is not “imprisoned” by being denied access to a country in which all land is privately owned, after showing up and/or crossing the border unannounced and uninvited.
c) If a person is in fact invited by an existing property owner, that is a separate issue which is not part of this discussion. If a person is not invited, to whose property would he or she be travelling?
d) If I can only use force for immediate self-defense, does this mean that I cannot use force to prevent a burglar from making off with my television set, provided that he is not physically threatening me?

1) Absolutely no. What if you want to let someone into the country and I don't? Of course if I am a free person I should be allowed to travel anywhere without the permission of the government. Having to ask a government permission to travel is the very essences of tyranny

There is no such thing as a unlawfully entering a free country or unlawfully leaving a country. Do you ask permission to leave your state or enter another state?

The government does not own property and you cannot use your property rights to imprison people. Private property can never be used to imprison someone. Property rights are not unlimited, they can be used to exclude as long as they do not unreasonable limit access travel between other people's property. If that were not the case then the transcontinental railroads could have forced everyone to travel by ocean to go north or south of their lines.
You have clear not thought about what property rights are how they are created and what they cover. Here are some articles on point http://hallingblog.com/2015/09/20/the... and http://hallingblog.com/2009/12/14/pro...

Your argument fails and it is an attempt to suggest that Natural Rights can be used to imprison people, which is absurd.

Yes yes I have always had that problem of fitting in because I have some serious issues with "faith"! :-)

DB- Two issues with your statement above. First, is a question. Don't you think a government, especially a free government, has the right to decide who they allow in (see the shield and rules for entering the Gulch). Also, shouldn't a government be allowed to protect their borders from the unlawful entrance by anyone for any reason? I have read everything I can find on Natural Laws from Cicero to our founding fathers, and back. I don't find a right to travel onto someone else's property anywhere in those writings. Then, if a government decides to make it illegal to enter without permission, haven't those entering forfeited their freedom the minute they decide to break the law by entering? This is my problem with the entire pro-illegal immigration movement. We don't have to wait for them to break a law once they get here. They broke a law by getting here. They are also hurting all of those that want to come here legally. Land, wealth, jobs, etc, are all finite resources. Those that take those resources without following proper protocol reduce the available resources for those who would do it properly. We have the most liberal immigration laws in the free world, and we are accused of restricting freedom if we don't ignore them for those that break them.
As for ISIS, you are correct that the federal government probably poses more of a threat to our freedom than ISIS right now. However, ISIS is the acute threat right now. You don't ignore a bleeding wound because the person with that wound has cancer. You treat both. ISIS does in fact pose a threat militarily to us. They pose a far greater threat than any country in the world. No army can stand up to ours. On a battle field, we cannot be defeated. However, all the aircraft carriers in the world are useless against a man with a suicide vest in a crowd. Anything we can do to make it more difficult for them to come over here should be explored. The best part is, we have all the resources we need without having to send a single soldier over there at this point. We have an entire army of willing fighters over there right now begging for equipment- the Kurdish Peshmerga. They are winning battle after battle with 80's technology. Imagine what they could do with a crate of night vision goggles and modern weapons. Unlike the Syrian rebels we are arming, the Kurds have been a loyal friend to the US for decades despite our repeated failure to be a friend to them.

Thanks for your response Zenphamy. I certainly have no problem with critiques and discussions. After all that is what any group is about. I have no issues with the challenges of my comments. I was thoroughly enjoying the back and forth. It is how we lowly humans, at least me anyway, learn.

My comments to you came about when I was seeing some of the heavy hitters and senior members of the group, yourself included, lament as to the direction of the conversations in this post as well as in other posts. My opinion is those that are the most senior must set the path for the group. If a strict interpretation of the Rand "Philosophy" is the direction those such as myself, I can't speak for anyone else, should not be involved. I like the free exchange of ideas but only when that is the purpose of the group.

As for immigration, refugees and ISIS, in principle I agree. It is the welfare state of our USA that is attracting those that wish something for nothing and that MUST end. But for ISIS, they just want everyone except Muslims to die and then they will probably eat each other on disagreements internally. I have been saying for decades that most war would not be conceivable if there were none of the Main stream Religions. Oh and then I am proven somewhat wrong with those little lovable college wallflowers whose feelings are so easily hurt. Yes the poor babies. But I digress. If we are simply talking about the USA yes many have been killed by our Gov't. But to be fair history needs to be remembered and well as to the 10s of millions who died at the hands of despots the planet over. I do not try to make excuses I mention only the History.

Sorry I just chuckled at your last comment. You mean like the strong rebuke I get from my Baptist neighbor when he tells me I should go to church with him and pay my respects to God. And I say pointing to the sun that I am basking in my Creators light?? As I said earlier, I totally expect a strong reaction at times. But I am in total agreement on individual rights, freedoms and gov't intervention. A few other issues, which should be another post, not so much.

Thanks again.