No. The whole premise of this post is a false dichotomy. There is no connection between private property and immigration. The real question is whether a group of people in control of a piece of land have the moral and legal authority to control who enters their piece of land. This is Jefferson's reason for writing "...to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Hello sjatkins,
Markings on a map, yes. Arbitrary, no.
Do you possess the right to dictate, or protect, the cultural norms of your city? What identity of your city do you have the right to protect by force? By the act of posting guards to question everyone who wishes to enter?

At what point does a nation acquire those rights that you (or your city) do not possess?

I wanted to ask you again about your position. I read your article, and think it has helped my understanding.

I now envision a spectrum where you have the right to travel freely on one hand, and on the other hand a solitary confinement prison cell. You are arguing that if we do not have the absolute and unhindered right to travel freely (e.g., not allowed to travel to X), then we are implicitly a prisoner (at least to some degree; the prison cell of everything that is not X). And, if I am understanding you correctly, any movement toward being a prisoner is an unacceptable limitation on our liberty.

If I am understanding you correctly on that, I do wonder if you are consistent in your insistence on that principle. Does a man have the right to camp on your land, even against your will? Does he have a right to walk into your home uninvited? If not, are you not limiting his "right to travel freely"? Are you not saying, "You may not occupy this space, you are limited to the prison of all the other space available." So I suggest that you too limit a person's right to travel freely. So the question is not whether we limit that "right," but how and where to draw the line on the spectrum between free travel and prison. I believe we ought to recognize a range that respects private property, and yet does not constitute a prison.

I agree with you, that there should be provision for people to travel to any place they are welcome. For example, if someone needs to traverse privately owned land in order to access his own (or a friend's) property, there should be a way for him to do that. But even here there are limits; he must do so as the property owner allows (e.g., he may not just barge through a person's house, claiming that he is just freely traveling across the property). Likewise, I would probably even agree with you that a person ought to be allow to travel through a nation in order to get to another nation (especially a landlocked one). But here too, I would say, there ought to be limits based on the nations immigration rules. We would disagree on that. But I think our disagreement should not be seen as one of principle (we both affirm private property is good and prison is bad), but merely where we draw the line on that spectrum.

kevin; Your rant was fine. Keep questioning. It keeps us all on our toes. That's what I think this site is all about.

So you feel insulted and belittled by my general comment made to the post----Aaaahh. As to your desire to play Miss Manner's and rule the debate, I don't remember your appointment as moderator or Post Police.

If you have a counter to anything within my comment, please reply. You might wish to check the FAQ's of the site just to refresh before you do so. Some that apply to this little comment of yours:

General Etiquette:
"Debate is fine, but remember this site is specifically for supporters of Ayn Rand's ideas. If you don't support Ayn Rand's ideas, you're in the wrong place." (emphasis added)

Under Don'ts:
"Wage personal attacks or chastise other Gulch members. Ad hominem and/or "flaming" is not permitted."
"Assume the role of an Admin and attempt to discipline other Gulch members."

The core question of this particular post is 'Whether private property rights support exclusionary immigration and should this country exclude immigrants'. The poster has laid out an argument that the idea of Private Property being used as a justification of exclusionary immigration is flawed. Additionally, that immigration exclusions are not Objectivist. The latter supported by direct quotation from Ayn Rand.

When faced with those replies, several commenters have provided additional arguments of Pragmatism, Relativism, and Fascist Nationalism rather than counters from Ayn Rand or Objectivist thought. Pointing that out is not 'name calling' nor 'belittlement'. And such immigration arguments, as those made by Trump in the last couple of months are disturbingly similar to arguments made to the German people by Hitler in 1930.

My suggestion to those commenters, was to, "Take a step back and review the principles of Objectivism and you will find solutions to your anger." I find nothing within any of that to apologize for.

I can accept that.

Thank you Zen,
I hope you understand that was not personal and not directed at you alone. Perhaps this was not the proper place for such a rant but you did (a couple times) express interest in why some were having a hard time with the subject.

I understand completely your frustration with those on here who would rather bend Objectivism to fit their ideas instead of the other way around and I admire your ability to see the root of their argument and not get trapped arguing with their endless rationalizations. I wish I had that ability. And those with malicious intent... Yeah, I understand. But I was pushing 40 when I was introduced to Objectivism and after 9 years these subjects still come up that I haven't thought through completely. And sometimes it is uncomfortable to realize that. I'm not the only one here but I also realize it can be hard to tell the difference. Thanks for keeping us in mind.

You are basically arguing that a nation is just arbitrary markings on a map, that a nation has no identity or common culture or norms. If this was so it would have no right to impose conditions upon those entering it. As I see it your argument only works if you ignore Ihe law of identity.

Is the logical equivalent to freedom to walk onto my property the inability to move?

Do you think your belittling name calling is an example of Objectivist thought? Express a cogent argument beyond hand waving begging the question. But do not insult others in doing so or conflate one position with others needlessly.

Trump has no more to do with the core question than Hitler does.

A person no more has the right to enter a country at will with the country having no right to limit or question their access than a person has the right to walk into my house without my approval. They are quite analogous.

Thanks Zen!

I do understand Kevin. But there is a root, a beginning, a basis that every question stems from. If you can clear your way back to the basic foundation of the problem, you will usually find your answer. Sometimes you "can't see the forest for the trees". I also have problems applying Objectivist principals to all situations. I too, come to this blog for clarity and to have those "but of course" moments. I too cannot always find the right words or the premise to explain things. I did find this Property Rights and Immigration question answered in these posts. Keep searching and if you are like me, a light will come on in your mind and you will find comfort in knowing you understand.

Doesn't necessarily answer every conceivable question, but I think this is a good start:

Public Thoroughfare I think of as one built and operated by a government. The free market would have private Toll Roads.

Reply to kevinw above:
"It's your toll road, operate it however you want and face and accept the consequences, except that you're not allowed to initiate force to your customers.
Customers will decide if they want to go through your conditions, or find another route, or a competitor will offer different conditions for use that draw your dissatisfied customers away."

Could you show me a more realistic way to arrive at a situation in which you are "locked up on your property with no way to move and no way out?"

The issue of public thoroughfares is neither as simple nor as self-evident as you suggest. Ayn Rand had very little to say on the subject other than streets and roads should be “privately owned and privately run.” This is one of several topics that need to be further developed in order for there to be a coherent Objectivist position on the subject, and for us to be able to advance from theory to practice.

Just looking at issues addressed in your response above, here are some questions that need to be resolved. Must a road owner make his property and services available to the entire “public” (all the people outside of your private property), or can he exclude certain people? If he retains the right to exclude certain people, and all roads are privately owned, does the term “public thoroughfare” have any valid meaning in an Objectivist society? To what extent can the owner make and enforce rules of conduct for people using his road? How much flexibility does he have to modify or suspend the rules if external conditions change? Can contracts (such as easements) be made and enforced that bind all future owners of the road and adjacent land?

The above questions and dozens of others need to be examined and discussed in light of Objectivist principles related to law, politics, economics and individual rights. The fact that many principles are clear does not mean that their application is self-evident. It’s anything but “a simple affair until government gets involved.” And even in an Objectivist society, governments will legitimately get involved from time to time, in order to enforce contracts and settle disputes related to the use of the roads. It’s one of the core functions of a proper limited government.

Well said! +1

kevin; I certainly apologize if I seem 'pissed off' at anyone's lack of knowledge or true desire to learn or clarify issues or applications of Objectivist thought. Recognize that there are a certain number of individuals on this site that disagree with Objectivist philosophy or at least parts of it that they just won't or maybe can't adopt into their ways of thinking, probably from the discomfort of having to give up on something they've had shoved into their minds for years if not their entire lives. There are some that will insert themselves into posts or comment threads for the malicious intent of espousing non-objectivist and/or belief system issues and/or disrupting the type of understanding and discussion you're asking for.

So ask all the questions you want kevin. If I see them, I'll make every attempt to answer them or suggest somewhere to look and I'll save my rancor for those that earn it.

Hello ycandrea,
I think that some of the problem has been some oversimplification. Many of us Are checking our premises and finding contradictions. But the simple answers aren't enough to eliminate those contradictions. Sometimes you don't find those contradictions until you throw the extreme examples at it. Sometimes what looks like a contradiction is not a contradiction at all but if you stop before you get to it you might go in the wrong direction. If all you find are contradictions you might settle for a pragmatic solution. I got my answers. Some didn't. Some didn't want answers.

Just sayin'

The free market does not respond immediately, but over time. But it will always provide competition if there is a market.

If someone can't pay in a free market economy for travel, he handles it the same as if he can't pay for food, or housing, or medicine. Sometimes reality bites.

+1. Yup!

This is what I see happening. You and DB and possibly several others have already been through this in your minds. I assume you have gone through all the steps, eliminated the contradictions and come to your conclusions. You take this subject for granted. I, for one, am literally working through this as all this goes on. I'm sure some others are too. Call it laziness, lack of time, whatever, but I have never worked through this subject completely. I have long agreed with your position on the immigration/welfare part of it and many here have said they do as well. It is the travel/borders/public thoroughfare part that I am talking about. I have not been through all of this thoroughly, I have not eliminated the contradictions and I have not come to my conclusions. When I see contradictions, I must ask and possibly do some research. I know some people (a lot) have been frustrating you guys but I think most of us would just like to clear up the contradictions. I must assume you went through the same process to be so sure of your conclusions. If you did not then maybe your frustration is unwarranted.

There are few of you on this site that I think have a better understanding of Objectivism and its application than I do. Only a few who's comments I will seek out on an issue that has me perplexed or questioning. And every Damn one of you gets pissed off when someone else asks a question that I think is relevant but you think is self evident. And when you guys get pissed off, you don't tend to answer questions very well. Makes it tough to ask a question from where I'm sitting.

That's my rant. I'm not asking you to pander to me. I'm just telling you what I see happening.