Objectivism does acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. In The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand says, " A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. . . Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations."

I continue to be amazed, that in a country founded on the principles of Individual Natural Rights that so many express such misunderstanding of what they are and how they apply to the life of a man.

The only situation that limits the activities of a man is when he attempts to infringe on the rights of another. The infringer's rights aren't limited, he doesn't have the right to infringe in the first place. And as to being alone, there is no one to infringe on.

And since he doesn't have that right in the first place, he encounters the Individual Natural Right of the man being infringed on, of self defense.

Please elucidate, I don't see any contradiction. And having been an advocate of Objectivism since 1962, I no longer refer to myself as a "student of Objectivism," although I am always willing to learn new things.

An international border is not private property. Land immediately adjacent to an international border is private property (or would be in an Objectivist society). The property owner has the right to control access to his property from neighboring properties in his own country. Are you saying that he does not have the right to control access to his property from neighboring properties in another country?

All of that has been answered. And you have seen it. Anything new?

That may well be a circular definition. So your rights are absolute, but only if you define them properly. And if you find that your rights interfere with someone else's rights, then you haven't defined them properly.

Ok, but that's not a very useful use of the word absolute -- it becomes synonymous with unchallenged.

Rand uses the term 'force' rather loosely. For example if I agree to mow your lawn and do not, that is considered 'initiating force' because I broke a contract.

To go back to Jan's Goat Evisceration argument, if we have neighboring plots of land and you burn tires on a day when the wind is blowing in my direction you are going to forcibly fill my property with noxious fumes. Or you may simply play rap music really loud in the middle of the night which will certainly forcibly interrupt my sleep.

Just because you state it doesn't make it so.

America's existence is by the authority of its people. As you know each state was its own entity and those States (acting on behalf their people) authorized a federal government to maintain common interests - one being defending the states united. You cannot defend what you cannot define. A border is the definition, that line of demarcation, of the people of the United States landmass (and any country) which defines its private property. Logically and rationally the United States as a sovereign nation, granted its authority to exist by its people, can and should regulate immigration how its people see.

Just because Objectivistism does not acknowledge the sovereignty of nations does not make it so, even if you say it 250 or 250,000 times. The passages quoted by JBrenner in another thread make a hell of a lot more sense in reality.

The only purpose of rights is guidelines for men to deal with one another. There is no need for rights if you are alone. Rights, properly defined, have limits. That has been said over and over. But a properly defined right is absolute and cannot be limited beyond that definition. That is a violation of a right. That requires force. Exercising your rights within their proper definitions is not a limit (violation) of another's rights.

again, as has been stated now, what-21 times? a international border is NOT private property. and no one is advocating trespass onto private property. this cannot be stated more clearly and these arguments are strawmen because they are not promoted by the poster.

Asking to enter private property, for one. Accepting when entrance to private property is denied. Halting at a border (a property line) when asked and not forcing the use of force to make you stop.

This isn't difficult. It more respectful.

and what activities that do not initiate force are those, william?

"The “right to travel” has two components – the right to exit and the right to enter. I doubt that many on this board would dispute one’s right to exit a dictatorship. But the right to enter a particular geographical location is another matter entirely."

It would seem you have a contradiction there. One that your logic doesn't solve. If you are a student of Objectivism, you know what to do next.

I'd love to see how long the Gulch would survive implementing this particular principle. WilliamShipley is correct, individual rights can only be absolute if you are alone - I'd add, residing with others of like mind.

I'd wager the Gulch would soon take up arms or at the very least provide some filtering (regulating) at a guard post. After all, you protect what you value...unless of course you have no right to own anything.

Thank you.

Individual rights can only be absolute if you are alone. As soon as your activities impinge upon the rights of another person someone's rights are going to be limited.

Thank you.

The “right to travel” has two components – the right to exit and the right to enter. I doubt that many on this board would dispute one’s right to exit a dictatorship. But the right to enter a particular geographical location is another matter entirely. One may not enter your house without permission, because it’s your private property. One many not enter a gated community without permission, because it’s the owners’ private property. The same logic extends upwards to cities, states and nations, provided all property is private, which in an Objectivist nation it would be. No one is “imprisoned” and no one’s rights are violated by being denied access to property that is not their own.

To be fair to Hernstein and Murray, they were not particularly talking about race, they mentioned it in passing. They were talking about the trend beginning in the 60s of aggressively pulling together the bright people into college -- which previously was more of a class structure. That the concentration and separation of people by intelligence would have a profound impact on the culture.

I will admit I found the racial graphs quite depressing.

I think the problem is not letting foreigners in or that we will get a coherent nation by letting only Europeans in. History is full of Europeans clashing.

The United States is relatively rare in the history of the world because of the wide variety of people who make up the country,at least initially for the most part people coming to make a new life for themselves to where they could own property and start their own business.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the philosophical argument that has been raging with so much rancor, from a practical view our current immigration policy is horrific from the point of view of building the nation.

Legal immigration is very difficult. It's hard to move here if you are skilled, if you have money, if you are in most of the world. The legal path is tortuous. Yet we have lots of immigration but it tends to be from specific spots and by people who are willing to break the law to come here.

If you want to do the E Pluribus Unum thing, you need to have a wide variety of different ethnic groups. Too many from one ethic group encourages that group to try to turn this into "the old country". I lived for a while in a Polish section of Chicago. This is not limited to 'brown' people.

Ahhhh; these bans?

well in the story, the goats outsmart the troll. One can see a scenario that a bully/thief is using the bridge to keep others from passing, since they have limited options. Of course, this can be the very same argument the left uses against business people and the govt often uses against business people But the idea that you can't do regular business crossing the land or a bridge without a toll also can be used to demonstrate how governments enslave us or make us a prisoner. The security perceived problem is always a gotcha for freedom loss. why don't people get that? I suppose it mostly stems from a valid argument against anarchism. Of course Objectivism does not support anarchism, but a proper form of government outlined in Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal. That's the inconvenient part of sticking to principles in a philosophy. Sometimes it's hard I think this issue is one of those hard ones where we do not get the luxury of saying, hang it! we have a problem and I want to plug the hole in the dam. The dam may just sprout other leaks. Ok, ok done with the analogies.