On your solutions regarding making immigration easy, legalization of drugs, reduction of gun control, and the illegal arms trade, we are in complete agreement. Not only was one of the Garland firearms from ATF, but don't forget "Fast and Furious".

As for the article, I chose to write the way I did because I wanted to do so. My arguments are mine, because I am my own highest authority, just as you are your own highest authority.

As for proper government roles:
Welfare, the Patriot Act, etc. were intentional violations of the Constitution that served to empower those who passed them at our expense. When politicians willfully violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution, the citizenry can a) vote the bums out, b) revolt, or c) shrug. a) hasn't worked. We probably lack sufficient resources to win at b). That leaves c).

corporate property is private property unless it is publicly traded. It functions as private proerty. Public lands are for anyone to use provided they initiate no harm. How those rules are procedurally administered does not include picking "winners" (natural born citizens) and "losers" free people from other countries. Saying one's environment/culture is threatened by others' ideas, well there are proper ways of approaching that. Dissemination of knowledge for one, proper, but limited laws, strong private property recognition and enforcement.

you completely ignore the arguments presented in the article! Why is it that a country should not keep free people from travelling over public land? If they have committed no crime and want to freely associate with with those who have private property? because public lands do NOT belong to the government. They belong to its citizens. You may want to keep free people out, I may want to associate non-citizens. When someone commits a crime, law enforcement will handle it through procedures we have put in place consistent and representative of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. There is nothing in those documents to tell the govt to lock down the border. Is it a declaration of war? We have formal procedures put in place for that. You want to be protected against possibilities. I get that. a proper govt role would have been never to allow a welfare state. how has that protected you? A proper govt would not be allowed to pass the Patriot Act. The Boston Bombers still happened. In the end, you are willing to give up the farm for unseen or unperformed protections. Make the immigration process easy. and your illegal problem will diminish. Legalize drugs and your violent cartel problem dries up. Reduce gun control and illegal arms trade will no longer be lucrative. but no. instead we are arguing to save us from the evil mexicans. protect me from the ATF-you know one of the gun walking firearms was found at the scene of the Garland, TX attempted terroist attack and that 100s of Mexicans have been killed by those guns allowed into the hands of criminals knowingly

Public property is owned in a manner entirely analogous to corporate property. I am sitting in an office unit owned by Schuyler House, No individual owns this all though Jan and I each own a rather large percentage. This ownership does not allow us to dictate how the property is used. Corporate property is owned by no one in particular.

All the ownership does is allow us to select people who have the authority to run it -- which happens to be the two of us. Because of that we can decide how it is run.

While I don't remember the corporate details from AS, I assume neither Hank Rearden nor Dagny Taggart were sole owners of the companies they ran.

Ownership and control can easily rest in separate hands.

In many countries, certainly in the U.S. the citizens of the country vote to give control to the politicians who have the control over the assets subject to the constitution (if they read it).

Part of the problem is a variance in the set of expectations of what is the proper role of government. There are very few things that are in the proper role of a federal government. Border protection is one of those few things. If a country will not protect its border, the country has no reason to exist. The primary reason why individuals aggregate into societies is to provide for a common defense. This is why walled cities were formed thousands of years ago. Very few individuals have the financial wherewithal to provide their own border protection besides a fence and video camera security.

Every country in the world expects that visitors produce a visa, passport, etc. for permission to enter their country, and expects that visitors obey their laws once they have arrived. To suggest that this is an unreasonable burden upon the visitor or immigrant, or to suggest that anyone who expects this little from their government is "anti-freedom" is not reasonable. It is no more unreasonable than expecting that someone should produce a photo ID in order to vote. Yet both are being attacked for being unreasonable expectations, the former within this forum and the latter outside this forum.

The solution to this "conflict" is to sell all "public property" and thereby pay down, if not eliminate, the national debt.