The reason several of us are resistant to this particular pro-freedom solution is that it attacks the symptoms rather than the cause. The cause of the problem is the looter-crony-moocher triumvirate, with emphasis on the former two. Ridding us of the welfare state would be a monumental and wonderful improvement, but it would far from solve the problem, because then the locust triumvirate would feed more directly on us.

I didn't figure you would. We've met and spoken a bit, I think I have a better impression of who you are.

OK, fair enough. The first statement was a statement of logic. You were explaining why you did not agree. If there is no logic there, that's on you.
My mistake on the second phrase. I used a capital "C" Capitalism referring to Ayn Rand's definition of it. I assumed that, as a long time fan of Ayn Rand, you would understand. You could easily have substituted "free market" and gotten the same results. My apologies.

I did not down vote you

Your question was "Do you see the severely flawed logic in these two statements?" My answer was "No I don't." A clear answer to a clear question.

The statements are very clear. As was the question.
Since you have chosen to evade the question there is no use to continue.

If I were stuck in Mexico, I would want to come here. But wants, like needs, are not rights. Two separate issues.

To repeat my question, in the current situation, are you in favor of protecting the property rights of landowners near the Mexican border? Or to rephrase the question from the property owner's point of view: Does the government have an obligation to protect me and my property from people crossing the border? Straightforward questions, both of them.

No I don't. The first is not a statement of logic, it is a statement of fact. The second lacks precision because the word "capitalism" is a vague term that has multiple meanings. For this reason I never invoke the word "capitalism" when advocating for economic liberty. I use the term "free market," which is much less subject to abuse and much less likely to be associated with cronyism in the minds of the general public.

Yeah, I wouldn't care for this statement either.

Here Here! Enough of all the nonsensical, extreme stuff. You have explained it very well and in easy to understand language! I do not get all of the repetitious roadblocks to reason some are posting on this page. Thank you db

" 'If some are not free---then no one is free." I don't agree."Freedom in the world today is a matter of degree, not an either/or, all-or-none condition"

And Capitalism in the world today is a failure. Look how poorly it has done in the banking, health care and insurance industries.

Do you see the severely flawed logic in these two statements?

So now you're back to the practical/pragmatic solution.
The current situation violates everyone's rights. The proper routes of travel are blocked by armed guards and barricades. Remove those and there is no reason to cross private property.

Mexico is not quite a dictatorship, but if you were stuck in Mexico, you would want to come here. I know I would.

Given that debate stance, wouldn't a person trespassing on someone's private property after crossing a national border lose all of his Objectively moral rights? And at that point, wouldn't the host government be relieved of any obligation to recognize or protect his rights (assuming it had such an obligation in the first place)?

The States haven't been truly independent entities since they established a federal government.

If you want to go back then you're talking the nomadic migratory mentality before tribal communities.

Pro-freedom is a misnomer for what you're peddling. You want open borders or no borders without private property (the US border IS the private property of the American populace). This is unacceptable to me since I value that which is mine, including this country and its history.

Where do you think the word "states" comes from? It is exactly the basis for any border. There is historical basis of the US is that they were separate countries, colonies.

This post is not dealing with current US law, this is a philosophical discussion on what is the proper answer. Why do you continue to conflate the two? Please answer just once, why you are so resistant to a pro-freedom solution?

I'm not sure the two of you are discussing the same thing.
A natural right is absolute. You do have to properly define them. This is Locke and Rand. You are a US citizen, go read about Natural Rights. For all of those so worried about being invaded, they should at least study rights as defined by the philosophers who influenced the founders and the founders on issue.

Khalling- I'm not talking about movement between the States (You know this). The United States settled that matter many years ago and formed a government of the people of the United States and for the people of the United States. The issue is with those who exercise the "right to travel" by crossing a national borders in flagrant violation United States laws (the American peoples laws governing THEIR private property). And yes we do have checkpoints established at some points between the States in areas frequently traveled by illegal aliens and drug traffickers. And yes I have been stopped by those checkpoint between Phoenix and Tucson, Phoenix and California, Phoenix and Nevada, and Phoenix and Utah.

Zenpahamy - with how much conviction and vigor would you support an actual Gulch? While not a nation, you'd be exhibiting a form of nationalism, no?

I've never hid that I do not consider myself anything but a Constitutional Conservative. Thanks to these discussions the reasons for me doing so has never been more apparent to me.

I read this and realized I was typing too fast. I meant to say "the least of which is an initiation of force" and would add fraud, for example.

I m not making this up. It is called the Commerce Clause. The whole point the Clause is that people and goods may travel freely between states. The collective people of AZ may not stop the collective people of Utah from coming and going and trading in AZ. Among a proper govt, they do not stop people from traveling. It would only make sense in a case of war. Freedom is about individual rights. You can't treat people as a group under individual rights, unless you are in a state of war, and even then, very limited. Ex: Japanese American internment

Rand builds on Locke and the Founders on rights and there's a whole body of work on this. It is not vague. Under a proper definition and approach to Natural Rights, you do not list out all your rights. You have a right to do anything not prohibited, while the govt is only allowed to do those things that it is expressly allowed to do so.

Going from rights to laws and specific situations under the law is real work and Rand was not a legal scholar nor claimed to be. She laid out the framework for a proper legal system (she and many others). You are asking detailed specific situations opposed to general principles. Working out the detailed legal understanding of a particular situation would not be appropriate on this post nor is it necessary to resolve any issues regarding the general principles of the right to travel. btw, I laid out the general principles for how property rights work on this post. However, I can lay out the general principles of genetics, but that does not mean that it does not still take real work to apply these principles to specific situations. That does not mean principles in genetics are unclear.

natural rights have been properly defined MANY times on this site. Go to ARI or Atlas Society. read dozens of articles-see videos all defining rights. If you are interested, that is. BUt to make a sweeping statement that Rand uses the term "force" loosely would be telling me that you have not explored much Rand.

what nonsense. The breaking of a contract happens for many reasons-not in the least an initiation of force. Those issues all have remedies in a proper govt situation. The fact I am an illegal mexican walking down the road next to your house is NOT initiation of force