By Jove.

Okay, here’s where I think we disagree.

You say that “the only proper role of US government is the protection of the individual's rights”. This is not quite accurate, as far as Objectivism is concerned. Ayn Rand said, “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.” This is a subtle but crucial distinction. If a complete stranger suddenly shows up in your country, does he automatically have the right to be there? If the country is governed by Objectivist principles, the stranger is either on private property without permission (trespassing), or he is on property the control of which was specifically ceded to the government by its citizens to carry out specific functions for the benefit of the citizens that authorized it. The stranger cannot claim the right to be on this type of property either. (He may obtain permission to be there, but that is a separate issue. We are talking about rights.) He also does not have a valid moral claim upon the government to protect his rights. This would saddle the government with an unchosen obligation, and Objectivism does not permit the creation of unchosen obligations.

To allow such a stranger free access to the country would also put at risk the citizens that the Objectivist government was formed to protect and defend. The stranger could claim to be a political refugee, but he could just as easily be a spy for a foreign dictatorship, a terrorist or a sleeper agent of the kind that carried out the 9/11 attacks. To allow such a person an unrestricted “right to travel” within the country, until and unless he overtly initiated force, would be a major breach of the government’s obligation to protect the safety and property of its citizens.

The above says nothing about whether or not we should advocate a more open immigration policy. It may well be in our self-interest to do so. But no one can claim a “right” to immigrate to a specific country. I doubt that even Ayn Rand would support such a right, and she was an immigrant.

It is disheartening. But "they" are, as you said, over 100 years ahead of you in this country. (A conservative estimate) Thousands of years ahead in the rest of the world.

Nobody can make you stay and fight it. Atlantis sounds great. But I can't go yet. I haven't got my 2 decades in yet. :) So I'm staying to fight it. And I'm going to make sure I've got my message right, and consistent. Somebody got to me. Maybe I can get to somebody else.

With all due respect, Zenphamy, I have been standing up and saying NO and demonstrating and teaching others for 2 decades now because I thought it was in my self-interest. In retrospect, most of that time was spent altruistically. In short, I've been there and done that, and it is no longer (and perhaps never was) a fruitful effort.

Dear CBJ,
I like the topic, and think that it is relevant to my topic. However, your topic is probably going to generate enough responses that it merits being a separate discussion thread.
Thanks,
jbrenner

Thank you. That does help to clarify. I will likewise give you a more complete clarification later today regarding my thinking on the subject and where we differ. In the meantime, based on your post above, I would be interested in knowing your thoughts on a current issue: Is the nation of Hungary morally obligated to accept, and protect the rights of, all of the Middle Eastern refugees that arrive at its border? Or does it have the moral right to deny them access by building a fence along that border, as it is now doing?

True enough, but the property owner does pay for that original cost and maintenance over time. The immigrant perhaps does so as well through rent, if he/she is "out of the shadows".

I'm not a big quoter of Ayn Rand, but in this case she expresses my thinking quite well. "A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self- sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action-which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."

To me that means that if I'm born into a society, culture, or country that restricts or even punishes a man's right to life, then I have the right to take a rationally selfish action to exercise my right to life, to travel away from there. And since the only proper role of US government is the protection of the individual's rights, it must not use force, (physical corruption, coercion, or interference) to prevent me from exercising that right. And for arguments of any having to only do that for men under it's jurisdiction, If I can make it to that border or across it, I'm under it's jurisdiction and it must morally protect my rights.

As to 'pursuit of happiness' being misinterpreted and misused, I won't argue that point, but will point out that most of the oppressive law enacted in the country's history, it's been 'The General Welfare Clause' and National Security that have been the prime factors.

I hope that helps to clarify.

As I asked in the post above, please define the "right to travel freely." Otherwise we may be talking about different things.

Unfortunately, the right to "the pursuit of happiness" is often used to justify all manner of welfare state measures such as "free public education" and subsidized medical care. This diminishes its usefulness in promoting the Objectivist concept of rights.

Let me say at the outset that I do not recognize a “right to travel”, either for myself or for anyone else. It is no more a right than a “right to medical care”. Both supposed “rights” impose obligations on others. In the case of doctors it is a “right” to their services. In the case of landowners it is a “right” to use their property. It is true that people must be able to travel from one point to another, but this is a need, not a right. Like other needs, it can and should be met through voluntary transactions in a free market. A landowner exercising his property rights is no more “imprisoning” someone than a doctor is “killing” someone by not providing medical services. Atlas Shrugged is all about what happens when needs are elevated above rights.

j; The right to freely travel in Objectivism does not equate to 'at no cost'.

If they're traveling on a road, they're either in an automobile, which means someone's bought gas and paid the tax, or they're walking which I don't think really accrues any cost to anyone, other than cost to build it originally which you and I didn't participate in anyway.

The challenge of removing the war on drugs, the income tax, welfare, and the incentives that reward looters and cronyists would require a fundamental transformation of America many times greater than what Obama has accomplished. It has taken 100 years to get like this.

The far simpler solution would be to start over somewhere else, like the earliest colonists did. This is why I had shown interest in a physical Atlantis.

I agree with this part of your argument. Where the argument is weak is in the right to travel freely on a "publicly owned" road. If the citizens of a society are paying for that road via taxation and the immigrant does not, then the immigrant is getting a value (ability to travel) without having to pay for it. The reason that in most places the taxation to support roads is via fuel taxes at the gasoline/diesel station is to ensure that all pay to support those roads, regardless of property ownership status or immigration status. Perhaps the term should not be "right to travel freely", but simply "right to travel". There should not be any right to travel for zero cost. Even walking or bike riding require some "public" space. That much is charged to the property owners, and the immigrants are getting it for free. This inequity demonstrates how subtly the citizen owners subsidize the immigrant, and it extends to a wide variety of "public" services such as fire protection (which in some places is either non-existent or volunteer), libraries (which should be privatized), schools (particularly schools, which should also be privatized), etc.

This further reinforces my argument that the right to travel freely for immigrants at least indirectly and substantially (financially) translates to a requirement that the nation's citizenry must be altruistic.

Why do you assume that in an Objectivist society that 'all property is private.' Why would some not be unowned or not owned yet?

The 'right to travel freely' is corollary to the right to life itself and the right to earn one's needs for life. In the Constitution, it also derives from the right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. I don't know about canonical, but the right is essential to Objectivism.

But how do you dethrone them? We don't have the right to just go out and kill them. Just remove their food. Stand up and say NO and demonstrate to and teach others in order to get a bigger voice.

Aah, they will try to, but we don't have to let them.

You travel on roads. Not kitchens. If you own a road people travel on it. Presumably they pay you for the use of it. They have the right to travel but that does not impose a right to the product of your labor. Your road has a purpose. People must be able to travel from one point to another, just as you must be able to travel from one point to another. Otherwise you are imprisoned. If you recognize this right for yourself, you must recognize this right for everyone else. Without this right you cannot live. At least not in a society. Where rights matter.

Your argument is flawed, again. I-17 is a public road..I am the public - I am a tax payer - I am a resident of the state and a citizen of the country. I-17 is a road in my State which is in my country. Illegals may use that road because no one checks but that does not permit them in any way to be in our nation.

The right to travel is flawed and incorrect.

Please define "right to travel freely" in an Objectivist society in which all property is private. Ayn Rand never defined any such right and, at least at present, this supposed "right" cannot be considered canonical to Objectivism.

Do the american people have the right to tell you that you can't use Interstate 17 to travel from Phoenix to Flagstaff? Just because they don't want you in Flagstaff? They do not. Why? It is a public thoroughfare. Used by many to get from Phoenix to Flagstaff so they have no right to restrict just you. That is a violation of your rights. Your immigration status makes no difference.

It does not matter how many false alternatives you use, how much you reverse cause and effect, or attempt to abuse an unearned moral high ground, you change nothing. Everything I said stands. Your rights are no more important than anybody else's.

Private property rights and the right to travel freely are on equal ground. Understanding that takes deep thought. That takes effort. It also takes a willingness to set aside preconceived notions and put in that effort to find the truth. Yes your position is perfectly clear. You have the right to violate the rights of those who happen to be from outside the US borders and the US government is your tool to enforce that position.

Private property rights and the right to travel freely are not at odds here. This is Objectivism and you have refused to acknowledge even a single point so... Maybe.

At that point, the looters and cronyists will return to their more traditional source of food - producers like us. Looters and cronyists are insatiable omnivores.

But without the welfare system, the 'Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and Terror', and the Income Tax, we would have drastically reduced the source of what the looters and cronyists feed from. What do they do when their source of for disappears--they go somewhere else.

Reality can bite.

They looters and cronyists are the source of the problem. The war on drugs, the income tax, and welfare are symptoms. You told me that I had cause and effect reversed. With all due respect to everyone in the Gulch, the real cause is the looter/moocher/crony triumvirate. That is what has to be dethroned.

Regulating immigration is the sovereign right of a nation. The United States is the private property of the American people. The authority of the federal government, its very existence, was granted by the people of the States. The role of the fed gov is defined by the Constitution.

Yes, you are blaming America first and, remarkably, stripping away individual responsibility and accountability from those violating a just law. Each person is responsible for his her own conduct, yes? If so, then each person coming into this country has voluntarily violated the law - the reason is irrelevant.The blame for their lawlessness is their own - they didn't have to, nor were they made to violate the law.

You can't have it both ways - Is property private or not? If yes, then people's movements are restricted (they can go around). If no, then you advocate open borders, the erasure of national sovereignty, and one world governance or no governance. I'd even speculate that if you're against private property you're against ownership in general.

My side is clear..America has her right to her border and who comes in and out. Private property TRUMPS right to travel. The Founding Fathers were for state/national sovereignty and private ownership. If private ownership is something Objectivism is set against then I'm in the wrong place.