No you cannot keep me from meeting with and trading with any other free person. As clearly explained in the article and a government is not a private individual.

What a bunch of nonsense. The US was founded on correct philosophical principles The problem with the USSR was not that it tried to follow philosophical principles, it was that it had the wrong philosophical principles.

What lovely ad hominem. Is that really the best you can do? Write an article, post it up here and then not expect a critique - especially on a subject that's been a thoroughly discussed topic of at least four other posts? If your arguments are so flimsy that your first recourse is a logical fallacy, I need say nothing more.

Thank you. Then apparently, you agree that A, B, and C have the right to do what they are doing - namely to prevent others from trespassing on their property. Now, why cannot this same system be applied on a much larger scale - e.g.- the United States.

Attempts to establish states in accordance with "Correct philosophical principles" are what usually end in violent conflict and non-compliance with those principles. Witness the Communist revolution that led to the USSR.

Much of the purist Objectivist declarations I see sound much like the arguments of "sovereign citizens" and Anarchists. Long on philosophy, but short on reality. The "sovereigns" do resort to violence to try to put their principles into effect, and much of the statements about how to create a "pure" Objectivist state sound much the same.

I may be labelled a "pragmatist" by the purists on this site, but I think that I'm trying to envision a way to instill what I regard as admirable Objectivist goals in the real world. I think of myself as a "practicalist."

In all the cases you cite, a landowner took an action to limit access. None of these involve an innocent neighbor.....although, given the recent Kelo case...none of us actually own our property

I've encountered an example of the case posed in which a land owner sold another acreage within his surrounding acreage, then denied access through his still owned property. In court, it was found to be a fraudulent sale, or the seller had to provide easement.

There has also been numerous cases of enclosing another's land by buying up all the surrounding land, then trying to deny access. Attempting to gain water and/or mineral sources, etc. Even the government. Easements were forced by courts.

In some cases in which a county or state road, (even trail) had been abandoned, the owner of the land crossed tried a Quiet Title, again to deny access to another section of land, and the courts have forced easements.

So I'd say the author's example wasn't flawed.

Private property simply means that you have the right of control of your property and what happens on it as long as you don't cause harm to another's property with your actions, i.e. db's pig farm on the boundary with a neighbor, adjusting drainage to flood a neighbor, a hazardous smoke or vapor plume into your neighbor's property, etc. You have the right to protect your property from damage, i.e. stop trespass with force equivalent to the tort, a neighbor's tree limbs growing into your roof. You have the right to sell or transfer your property to another. You have the right to rent your property. Common sense.

That wasn't the scenario posed. In your example, you would have perpetrated a takings. The author said nothing about any existing right of way. The point I was making is that his example is flawed.

The whole issue of dealing with ownership and control of so called public lands is very tricky indeed. I can't gain access to my land without traveling through public lands in one way or another

Absolutely !

You are straying from the purpose of my original comment. I don't care about the tolls, or what the property owners are doing with their property. I am trying to grasp the meaning of what is meant by private property.

I think at one time it meant something. Like all things related to the Founding Fathers construction it has been perverted over time. In this case, less than 100 years later, the deconstruction of the Republic.

Yes, and It's a Great sentiment, but I'm convinced that's all that it is.

There are no free lunches. Privately or jointly owned toll roads have been a part of this country since before it's founding, and many libertarians maintain should be even today. A limited land area such as Islandia, owned by only 3 people as you propose, I suppose can do anything they wish. But if they espouse the ideals of Objectivism and freedom for all, they would likely establish a trading port for obtaining and selling and shipping their excess production and maybe provide for vacationers and tourists for fees. They could own all of that and direct hire personnel to run it, work it, etc. Or they might well sell lots to operators.

I'm amazed the numbers of anti-Objectivist and anti-freedom members that are being brought out by these discussions and posts on immigration and property rights. Individual freedom (including the right to travel) and property rights for all men are core principles of Objectivism as well as Locke's work that went into the founding documents of this country.

I see a lot of Pragmatism and Relativism and near Fascist Nationalism of the conservative type, in many of the comments as well as a lot of mis-understanding (maybe outright mis-statement) of Ayn Rand's thoughts. There's also much misdirected anger against the immigrant---not against those government actors that have bastardized our institutions to such an extent through government programs, non-prosecution, stupid and ignorant drug policies and wars, and outright scare mongering where the anger should be aimed.

Take a step back and review the principles of Objectivism and you will find solutions to your anger. While you're at that also do a little review of Hitler's promises to the German people if they'd just let him handle the Jewish, Gypsy, and mentally and physically deformed and weak problems. Germany would then be a country of prosperity and success again. Compare those promises to Trump's if we'll just let him handle the immigrant problem.

Then the corporation actors don't own it, the shareholders do.

Well said.

I think that's only true for lands after the Texan/Mexican war and cover Texas, South Eastern New Mexico. I think Texas insisted on it for the Tejanos that had joined them in their fight.

Indeed.

That is pragmatism. The Objectivist are trying to maintain the importance of basic principles in the face of several people wanting to compromise them or just no understanding them. Chief amongst those is that all men are individually free.

The realities that you refer to that we face today are there, only as a result of the general we that let them become such, by compromising those essential principles.

I am only interested in this hypothetical island from the point of view of understanding the right to private property. So the toll is not material to the question. The waterfront, from the high tide line down, would be owned by noone - just like the ocean itself.

Stop the government welfare, 'they' will assimilate and learn the language, or they won't succeed and will return to their own. It worked that way for more than 150 years. Some, like the Amish and Tejanos and Native Americans maintained their home languages, but also learned English. Get the government out of it and let the free market and free people solve the problem (if any really exist).

I'm not a huge fan of Lincoln and the massive expansion of federalism which was the Civil War.

Yes, what they do is more relevant than what they say. Even so, for the purpose of my statement the sentiment remains.

But Rand didn't represent her Gulch as a Nation/state, but a privately owned refuge for the essential producers of her world to escape the madness of the rest of the world and to withdraw their sanction. And thoroughfares and access were incorporated into those lots sold or rented.