You still are absurd and what is amazing is that you do not know it.

What is really amazing is that I have shown a pro-freedom solution to immigration, but you ignore it. We now know where you stand.

Did you even read my post? or the quote? The "They" that sold them the property may have some sort of obligation, but that obligation does not extend to the property owners around them. The "they" that sold the property or the nit wit that bought it without a deeded right of way, cannot impose a duty on me..the neighbor to provide a right of way. The only way that either the seller or the buyer can get a right of way is to convince me or one of the other neighbors to sell him one.Or worse......try to get the court to force us.

So no person can be delegated to act in your interest? A lawyer? A wife? A good friend who you trust? Acting in trust does not so much imply ownership as much as stewardship.

Government of the people, by the people, for the people (at least the original intent)

Robin Williams "Reality, what a concept."

Absurd?

I think the stumbling block is the application of said "basic logic" in a logical way in the existing world.

"Provide a logical argument of you you can be free, but told where you can travel - you can't because it is impossible."

This makes no sense.

A river flows freely wherever gravity takes it, except in those places where stones jut up to adjust its path - this is private property in this world.

I'm not alone. Nine other people see flaws in your argument.

I don't advocate kumbaya. I also don't "hope" or trust that other people with think as I do or come to think as I do. You're solution depends on mutual respect, which is a very rare thing in numbers. The only way your solution can work today is to eliminate private ownership of anything and erase state and country lines - any lines of ownership (Wyatt would be proud).

I do not advocate single world governance nor do I represent a nomadic, tribal, or herd mentality in the 21st century.

Apparently, on this matter we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot subscribe your purely philosophical point and you refuse to appreciate reality by calling me a collectivist.

Why are you bringing up such as scenario? Clearly someone sold them that property, if so then they have the obligation - You response is below 2nd grade level logic.

What is really amazing is that I have shown a pro-freedom solution to immigration, but you ignore it. We now know where you stand.

You clearly do not understand property rights or freedom. But what is really amazing is that I have shown a pro-freedom solution to immigration, but you ignore it. We now know where you stand.

Thanks for the clarification and elaboration. I knew that Nevada was pretty bad and picked up the 84% out of a quick Google search.

Could you clarify the distinction between Federal jurisdictions via land ownership and the public lands as proprietor? In your opinion, how does this ownership differ from that of a private group such as a corporation?

ed: I will say that I wholeheartedly approve of moving the vast majority of the currently unused land into private hands so that it can be productively used. Unfortunately the 'Greens' want exactly the opposite.

No a proper government cannot have property rights in land. Government's do not create things, so they cannot be legitimate owners.

Coming from someone who believes in ghosts, what a surprise.

The point was to show the absurdity of AJ position. He is just emoting.

You either did not read the words or you fail to understand basic logic.

Provide a logical argument of you you can be free, but told where you can travel - you can't because it is impossible.

But you know what shows your true colors is that you ignore a pro-freedom solution.

A fairly concise description of a real mess. Txs and +1

There is a free road to travel across our border...they are very obvious; it's called a 'Border crossing'. Crossing anywhere else is in violation of someone's or everyone's property rights.
And; the article ignores the moral standard most of live by...it's called knocking upon your neighbors door and asking to come in out of respect for their right of property.

Very similar to Alcohol. Prohibition didn't work on that, and obviously isn't working on drugs either.

Just a clarification here, but I would advise that readers change over to Eudamonia's postings citing Rand's specific words on the subject before attempting to assert that Rand advocated for open borders.

Agreed, but that isn't what the discussion is about - it's about travel - physical movement.

Further, I would point out that one's virtual presence is facilitated by the payments one makes to their ISP - a consideration and appropriate recognition of property rights and valuable services.

I agree with this, but it's become less important as the things people want to trade can be transmitted over computers without regard to where the market participants are located.

the drugs have a lot of downsides, like they ruin your chances of a good and productive life over time. People need to see the bad effects before they will stop using them. Buy the drugs at walmart, safe and secure and low priced and I think we would all be better off. No war on drugs, no infringement on rights due to the DEA, no cartels, and no need to rob people to pay for the drugs. Sounds like win win to me.