While locked up on your property with no way to move and no way out you could starve while waiting for the "market" to "overcome the difficulties".

Hello DB,
Can you expand on this a little bit? Or point me to where you already have? I did read your article but I am still having trouble with this. I was also under the impression that Rand was entirely opposed to any sort of public property.

I am not disagreeing with you, I am in 100% agreement with your solution to the "immigration problem" that is actually a welfare state problem. I must admit to letting my mind rest on the pragmatic idea to stop the bleeding first, until now, and it is hard to leave behind because I'm fairly certain we are going to bleed to death before the welfare state is ended but, as you have said, that is no reason to toss principals aside.

I apologize if you have already covered this thoroughly somewhere but I've been watching this drag out over many posts and in so many pointless directions that it has been impossible to follow all of it. I just can't put together in my mind an Objectivist version of a public thoroughfare or other public property (other than minimal buildings and offices necessary for proper government functions) that does not violate someone's rights somehow.

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo required the United States states to honor existing property rights granted by Mexico and Spain.

But we also have joint property rights with individuals banding together to form a corporation. In that case it isn't an individual either. A government owning property is entirely analogous to a corporation owning property with the citizens taking the place of shareholders.

"Grants" by foreign countries have no legal meaning in this country (or philosophical validity). Land ownership boundaries can sometimes be confirmed by patterns of historical usage.

"That word", property "ownership", does not equate government control with property rights of the individual.

Publicly accessible roads does not mean that the whole country is collectively "owned", confusing it with private property ownership.

Rejection of an appeal to collective ownership in the name of the Gettysburg address is not "down voting the Gettysburg address", which was not a call for socialism.

What Zen said :)

I am going to respond here to DBHalling's insulting comments. I do not agree with your article. Even though it is poorly written, I will attempt a rebuttal in plain English.

1) "...self-ownership means that you can travel freely. If that was not the case then someone could control where you went, which means you do not own yourself."

Your logic here is faulty:

Statement A: "self-ownership means that you can travel freely"
NOT A: "self-ownersnip does NOT mean that you can travel freely"
Thus your conclusion does not follow logically from your premise. In fact, I like the logical conclusion better.

2) Private property means property that is owned by someone. If a person owns property, then he has a right to control who can enter it. So the owner of private property controls where you go. This is freedom.

3) "There is a principled solution to the immigration problem..." Admitedly, your "solution" is desirable. But it does not solve the "immigration problem", unless your meaning is that people could then enter the country without anyone having the need to stop them. But private property owners - meaning the whole of the country - would still require them to have permission to enter their property, so there would be no place for the immigrants to go. This is the reason for border controls.

4) "Anyone who continues to push ... limits on the immigration and travel of people across the US border can no longer pretend they are freedom." I maintain that you have not shown this to be true. In fact such an "anyone" is sticking up for freedom, by insisting that such "people" have permission to travel on private property before entering the US.

I would like to reply here, but cannot, because my reply is cut off on both sides by the script of this page. So I will reply elsewhere.

I would argue that California has 'made it's own bed'.

Ayn Rand, as did the Founders of America, believed in, through logic and rational thought, that all men are individually free with all that means, and that includes the right to travel and the right to relocate for their individual benefit.

but how do we grant access to that public property? Obviously I wouldnt want invading armies to have it, even on their way to capturing someone elses private property. Or hordes of refugees for that matter. Not an easy question

No you question has been answered, you just don't like the answer.

Why should Mexico improve its system, if we're their safety valve?!? The only way those countries will improve is when their social problems pile up in their laps, not ours.

Individually, they may prevent trespass on their individual properties. They can operate as socialists and statists between each other if they want, but they are not a nation/state nor does their island include any non-owned (public) land. They have toll roads so they can't prevent others from meeting on the road, if they pay their toll, nor prevent others from meeting below the high tide line at the edges of their properties.

But if they are Objectivist or believe in freedom, they're going to have difficulties establishing trade or interactions with others or asking others to let them visit them.

Of course they'll also meet a little difficulty with shipwreck victims.

So, no I don't agree with what you're attempting to establish through an overly simplistic example.

Thanks, Ted.

Trump's gang would never defend individual liberty or property as fundamental rights.


$

You point is to extend this to the US, which I already showed was flawed and anti-freedom. Yes you are keeping me from traveling freely. You are a statist..

I am not keeping you from meeting or trading with anyone - just ask the person for permission to visit his property. Then if he wants to meet or trade with you, he will allow you to enter. And I never said the government is an individual!

Hear hear

Analogously, the country doesn't own the property, the citizens do.