Pardon.."without just cause."

I find it interesting that a proponent of Objectivism would encourage us all to proclaim that producers have no right to keep looters and moochers out, but rather walk right in and make themselves at home. Curious indeed.

DH isn't against individual private property or individual boundaries. What he's against, and refuses to concede, is the legitimacy of a national boundary as an extension of individual private property.

His Right to Travel means you can stop someone from entering your house but not your property. Even an agreement between States cannot constitute a legitimate border that can be regulated or defended because someone else's individual right to travel trumps your (your nations) right to security without just case. Example, let Syrian refugees in because we have no cause to think they will go boom...until one does and the continental US is up shiite creek form sea to shining sea.

Rational thinking.

I'd have to disagree on first thought, knowing the original intentions of conservatism ( which, like all else these days, has been confounded). But as always I am open to new knowledge.
Thanks, I'll check it out.

Yep you have proven you are an irrational conservative. You have proven you have no idea what property rights are. You have proven that your goal is to destroy Objectivism.

And not RATIONAL

I could not have said it better

Not one that is based on Natural Rights. Really you do not understand the most basic principles on which the US was founded.

True. And if each State agrees to a single governance unifying them (aka United States), then there is a national border. The authority for a collection houses, to a town, to a city, to a county, to a state, to a nation all compound from the individual consent of the governed.

A nation has only the rights that the residents of that jurisdiction assign.

That didn't deserve a down vote. +1

I am amused with the recent attacks on conservatism
here in the gulch. . it appears that we have some interest in
driving conservatives away. . this would be regretful, if true.

in my experience, conservatives are peaceful, reason-oriented
lovers of the U.S. as founded who bear no resentment
for anything which we objectivists profess. . my father was
so conservative that he invented recycling before society
could think it up. . conservation began with him as he studied
forestry and loved the Smoky Mountains as a refuge from
the irrational society in which he worked and lived.
at my request, he read AS and his only difference was the
fact that Dagny had more than one lover. . he believed in
chastity until marriage, you see. . and the spirit of conservation
which meant total dedication to elimination of waste.

should we not be building bridges to welcome conservatives
into objectivism instead of trying to drive them away?? -- john
.

I will. I have been itching to do so and mentally editing which version I would post depending on the ruling. Now it's put off for a month at least.

What I think I will do is start a post setting the basis for what they did to our project, but also how wide this issue has metastasized into. It's huge.

They just don't get freedom.

Indeed

In order for ideas of the Enlightenment, Capitalism, and the individuality of people to work and be implemented, they must recognize and incorporate more basic principles such as individual rights and the universality of those rights. Included in those rights is individual freedom and that includes the right to travel freely as well as those rights which insure freedom in general. And chief amongst those is the right to freedom without restriction unless and until objective evidence and proof of one's guilt of having violated the rights of another individual is deemed beyond all reasonable doubt.

You simply can't cherry pick rights or deny them to others if you wish to live with them yourself. They are inalienable to all men.

Yes.

db; you're right, of course, though I place it even earlier than the immigration debate--not quite as intense, but beginning. What I saw with the immigration debate was that many that came to the site from a conservative position, but were strongly interested in the ideas of Rand that they'd seen in the movie or in the discussions about it and had some interest in learning more, with the immigration issue suddenly went off the rails. And almost overnight, they'd moved back to pure, radical conservatism with reason flying out the window in favor of 'fear response' (fight or flight) and what seemed to them at the time to be popularity garnered through fear mongering.

While fear can be a useful emotion at times (it'll make you duck in a gun fight), reactions to it without reason generates pure primitive animalistic responses and builds upon itself. It's been a useful tool forever against humanity's struggle of reason with priests and charlatans and terrorizers, and it's generated tremendous wealth and attention for the Rushs, Hannitys, and Becks of our world, and particularly promoted conservative politicians.

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.

Where one would have reasonably assumed that the battle on the site would be against liberal and Christian trolls, we've been trolled over by conservatives.

I'm sorry as well. It seems your thinking has solidified to the extent that any variation or question toward what you say is seen as a slight and a challenge to your framework. I hold no ill will, I just disagree in some areas. Still, its regrettable.

Sorry AJ, I cannot teach you biology and it does not appear that you are interested in listening anyway.

Another barb.

Odd. Does one cell in a human body reason with the next? Does a white blood cell reason with a cancer cell?

Any creature has self interest - a plant, a fish, a snail, a bird, an ape - essentially any living thing. Self interest is what all of them need to do to survive and it can be entirely instinctual (a plant leaning into the sunlight) or genetically coded (a foal walking), or taught from their parent (using eating utensils with hot foods). Humans are not significantly different biologically than animals, correct? If thats true then reason is a higher-thought process that humans use to determine which things suit him/her better so they can achieve maximum value to self from their decisions/actions.