Here Here! When you don't use unnecessary force or artificial means, things usually take their natural course.

I have felt that way returning to the US for over 20 years, kh. Having flown into China, France, the Netherlands, Thailand, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Cambodia, Mexico, Honduras, Brazil, Panama, the Bahamas, Curacao, Bonaire since 2001, all treat visitors with respect. America is more like the old Soviet Union. Each time I return I am reminded of the book, A Time For Truth, by William Simon. In it, Simon reflects on returning from the Soviet Union and how when leaving the USSR the passengers cheered as they left knowing they were returning to freedom from dictatorship as if a great weight had been lifted. Unfortunately when I remember it, it is with profound sadness at what has been lost.

so bringing up Billy Goats Gruff. here's why you don't see many analogies from dale and i get caught up in them sometimes.
It will go to the weeds. we're going to get comments on
1. patent trolls
2. evil capitlists (Brechtian verson ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEllH... Three Penny Opera :)
3. drug wars-taking advantage of someone else's property-a criminal.
BUt this is a Grimm fairy tale and there was no established capitalism or property rights. This was a tale about the government

I also want to add, after being poked and prodded, my laptop slammed into the xray scanner, standing ridiculously with my feet apart and my hands over my head ( I thought that's how ISIS sometimes shoots people) -I came into Germany. I walked off the plane and no one asked me for a declaration of the value of my property on my person, I was not herded like cattle, I did not go through another scanner, no one asked me a bunch of arbitrary questions. I walked off the plane and into the sunshine.
I felt welcomed. I am a US citizen and I NEVER feel welcomed coming into the country.

+100.

Here are some principles. I can explain them in more detail elsewhere but here goes.
1. In any Objective, natural rights, system-it is a contradiction to suggest that property rights can be used to imprison someone
2. A "proper" government cannot stop someone who is traveling on roads unless they have probable cause they are criminal.
3. Property Rights are not unlimited, based on what you created.
so, think of a private tollway that encircles a city. According to the "unlimited theory of property rights" tht person has the right to starve the entire city to enforce his "rights"?
Dale went through this in great detail. Property rights are 1. not unlimited and 2. can NEVER be used to enslave people. and you know this. The contradiction is so huge that yes, it seems like people are not willing to think very hard about it. I see that you are willing to go through this.
4. the anti-travel position can only be supported by a collectivist idea of property rights (which is a contradiction since they yell about trespass) violating my ability to travel and freely associate with other people.
5. Dale showed in detail, property rights without the right to travel to and from the property, makes those rights meaningless.
6. Every man has a property right in them self. That gives them rights. That means they need to be able to travel-otherwise you re a prisoner. Property rights can never be used to imprison someone.
I'm not sure how I re-state this more clearly. Please present a logical argument where you are having trouble that does not result in one of these contradictions.

Think of the troll under the bridge story. sorry :) it's a good example. that's closed borders
[edited for restating]

May I conclude from your statements that there should be:
1) No nations?
2) No borders?
3) No laws? If there are to be laws should they be made and enforced by a global agency such as the U.N.?

And you, as well as everyone else, should take it personally.

That is so racist a statement as to be scary. Please take that kind of irrational thinking somewhere else.

As a man, I have the same rights as the individual you and any other man. And those rights include the right to my life and to earn the needs to at least maintain that life if not improve it. You, nor any other man have a right to deny or limit the exercise of my rights as long as I don't use force against you.

And just because you call yourself an American instead of just a man doesn't increase your ability to deny or limit my rights as a man. If I need to move to a different place in order to continue to exist or to conduct business or to freely associate or just to explore, I have the right to travel there with no restriction, again other than to initiate force against another.

Well said.

Yes.

No I'm not confusing nationhood with private property. However, I would like for you to clarify your stance on immigration and , therefore, I will rephrase in the form of a question. Does America (a group of people in control of a piece of land) have the right to decide who and how many aliens (non-citizens) will be allowed to immigrate?

Hello K,
This is probably the best place to start. It worked out very well for me but I don't think very many saw it. I would appreciate feedback on it if I missed something.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Also see this one. I think you guys take some of your knowledge and experience dealing with these subjects for granted. Not at all intended as an insult
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Edit; fixed links

If you haven't already done so, start with this comment and follow the threads. It goes a couple different directions but follow them through. Most of what you're saying is worked out.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

I think you are making a mistake in your comment as you appear to be setting up degrees of imprisonment. This would allow for an unnecessary and completely arbitrary line to be drawn between freedom and imprisonment. A line over which the argument would never end. The apparent contradiction between "freedom to travel" and "private property" is worked out within that thread and you have touched on it in your own comment as well. But don't allow yourself to get drawn into that attractive "gray area."

wrong. Please check your premises on "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"
are you confusing a nation with private property?

I missed those questions. can you point me to it? I think Dale was thorough in his explanation on this post. I am going to research a little on this. I think Locke will provide some answers. I thought Aristotle in Politics, but not finding anything on line so far and have limited time as I am in Germany with my daughter right now. and it is confusing that prominent Objectivists disagree on this subject. I am trying to get Yaron Brook's position, but I do not see it follow from first principles. I can only surmise that it may have to do with his growing up in Israel -a war ready country from its founding. I mean, he grew up with putting on gas masks as a drill. Dale has been clear that war is different. He has also been clear that a war on terror is an anti-concept.

Also, there were many comments that basically amounted to deliberate attempts to derail and mislead that were given far more attention than they deserved. This added to the difficulty of picking out the facts and the honest discussion about the actual topic.

Some problems that I have seen;
The topic of traveling freely vs trespass is not as simple as some might like to think but it has not been dealt with thoroughly enough. At least not all in one location in these posts.

Every time someone does begin to deal with the topic someone else goes off on a tangent. Some intentionally, I think. There are at least 4 posts (maybe more) and it has been impossible to follow.

I kept quiet until this post hoping to gather enough information to deal with the conflicts I was seeing but whenever the subject went the right direction someone got frustrated and quit trying to explain what they thought was obvious or someone else started their tangent, causing even more frustration.

Look for my interactions with DB and Zen on this post to see how I had to work it out. I wrote out my basic train of thought (the shortened version) so those who take it for granted could see the process I went through. I had to ask my questions very carefully because I was essentially asking questions that had been asked before and dismissed outright without explanation.

You are absolutely right that "no one shall shall trespass onto private property" vs "free to travel" needs to be addressed differently. But not more clear. More in depth. Students of Objectivism need to know why that is and how that can be accomplished without violating someone's rights. While we must come to the proper conclusions in our own minds you can't just say "this is the way it is, figure it out." The answer is more in depth than that. And not so obvious. This debate should be evidence of that.

I am still having trouble with the idea of government as a "caretaker" of public property but I don't want to open that can of worms on this post.

why is it, that no matter how many times it is clearly stated that traveling freely does NOT mean trespass, the ones disagreeing with that statement reference trespass? After so many continue to do this, I think it has to be restated differently than no one shall trespass onto private property. Is there a clearer way to state that? I don't think so

there is the most easy of opportunities politically for the Republican candidates to take this issue head on by stating -it's NOT border control (per se), this is about the Welfare State, flawed immigration policies and world economic decline due to out of control government spending, regulation and corruption. oh, and DRUG WARS that the US insists on waging to no avail.
Politically, you are pandering to a declining demographic (Trump).
this was a political comment, not a philosophical one, which I have made already on other posts. Stridently, I admit-for MY freedoms are being discussed as limiting in the anti-immigration discussions, so I take this issue VERY personally.

A real example was described elsewhere on this page here http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

In general there are laws and precedents on this issue because it does occasionally come up even with the dominance of so much transportation as 'public property'. It is additionally important because of the logical concern that with more private roads it could occur more often, not in a sweeping way -- it did not, for example, with privately run railroads, ships or airlines excluding people from travel -- but occasionally due to disputes or irrational behavior, including personal feuding or political ideology like the Trust case above.