Hear hear

Yes, but let's be practical as Wesley Mouch would say.

Ok. Then what is it that defines a country ?

Ahhhhh, if only we were free. There would be no "immigration problem".

There is no such thing as illegal immigration in a free country.

but this site is private Property. It is Scott's prerogative to let the conversations go where they will. We are all guests in his house. Any guest can choose to stay and enjoy or leave or not be invited back. A border is NOT private property. A country has to declare war (in a free society) in order to keep people out. Heck, did we keep out the communists. NO. Don't focus on the communists though (Islamists, Mexicans, immigrant de jour) focus on the the stuff that makes the country in the first place-the Constitution and its life. Same here in the Gulch, if the effective mission of the Gulch is not being upheld, scream bloody murder. Scott reads every PM or post directed to the site I have no doubt.

Check your premises. My right to have a gun and shot it, does not give me the unrestricted right to shot everyone. The fact that I have to state this shows you are either a sophist or incredibly ignorant.

What is amazing is that you statement shows that you do not understand rights at all.

I'm not certain that any of the Republican candidates oppose "immigration". What they oppose is "illegal immigration" which by U.S. law is vastly different, even if it does not have a distinction in Objectivism.

Zen, I find that I am not as active in the Gulch. I drop by, look at the posts, sigh, and leave. It's just not interesting anymore. I feel I could be on Limbaughs site. So I applaud the recent efforts of a distinguished few to return to discussions of and learning of Objectivism.

"But here, a site committed to reason, it's invited in and let loose those already here to come in and dominate the discussion in such a way as to not only nearly halt discussion and posting of the principles and ideas of Objectivism, but to drive out many reason contributing members."

Are you saying the application of dbhalling's unrestricted "right to travel" of some people coming through this site has made a mess of things? ;-)

yes, it is, Dale. . could you not imagine an evolutionary path
along which humanity might be traveling where religion
is a "palliative of the masses" which precedes the awareness
that reason requires denial of faith? . might our species
be traveling along that path? . and at this point, leading carefully,
might we not want to show gentleness to those who are
stumbling forward towards agnosticism? . I have smart friends
who express themselves fervently as religious, yet whose
actions betray their true confidence -- especially towards death --
that their faith is very tentative. . if we resist the tendency to
treat them as mental dwarves, we might gradually gain
more objectivists, don't you think? ... in this life! -- j
.

Benjamin, I would hope that we could welcome any person who
can see that objectivism is head and shoulders above
the alternative views of life. . I Want More Objectivists,
Don't You?

"conservative dogma" is just as detrimental as liberal dogma
or the others, as is any dogma which distorts reality.
I wonder what distortion of reality you see in my comment
about my father and his dedication to avoiding waste. -- j
.

John, why should we welcome conservatives any more than we should welcome liberals, libertarians, socialists, communists, or authoritarians? What about any of these qualifies one above the other to become Objectivist? The answer is that we should be more worried about conservatives because the INHERENT INTRINSICISM of the conservative dogma is not about freedom at all, but about retaining values passed on by tradition i.e. conformity. It's weird to read conservative dogma on a website dedicated to the author of The Fountainhead, in particular.

That depends on your goal. Short term it may make sense in politics to align with conservatives, but in the long term conservatives are no better than the socialists. Freedom is based on reason, not faith.

Sure actually study the philosophical movement of conservatism. It is anti-reason, anti-enlightnment, against the founding principles of the US, and anti-objectivism.

You lack of understanding of conservative movement is appalling. You do not address any of the points made in the initial post.

AJ has been hidden in this post, because he is not interested in reason, his only purpose in the gulch. AJ can spread his irrational points of view on numerous websites. This website is for people who are interest in reason and Objectivism.

I don't understand. . could you help? -- j
.

Dale, could you clarify? -- j
.

Is that a real question?

The number of false representations in your statements are amazing. You clearly do not know what rights are. When you have read Rand's books on ethics and capitalism and have studied some Locke, I would be happy to discuss this with you.