that is exactly the way I view it, blackswan! . we have
every right, as a nation, to select those who are admitted
and to reject those whom we pass over. . that is the meaning
of sovereignty. -- j
.

we are sure rejecting it, around here!!! -- j
.

I will have to rent the movie John Carter.
Your points are correct.

Tie in but off subject a bit: Did you ever see the movie John Carter?
In it are a small group managing the decline of civilization on mars. They told John Carter, an earthling, that they didn't create the fall, but managed it and did it by empowering the most barbaric with power and technology only because they could be controlled by this group.
I see many parallels in regards to today's world.
Applied to Rand and Hamilton, initiatory force is justified when initiatory force has been applied. In this case a non-free nation against a free one controlled by those that are managing their decline.
As many imply here in their comments, we are the aggressor and controller but that is not true.
We've all observed, our decline is being managed. Islam is a real threat but they are the barbarians controlled by barbarians whom manage the decline of civilizations. I wonder whom controls them.
Thought you'd enjoy this mind twister...and a bit of truth. It's not America, It's not the U.S. nor 'us'. I written before: America was not a conspiracy but she sure has been the subject of many.
Many here don't get it...WE are the victim, the subject of a world 180° opposed.

Indeed.

I am beginning to despise the word collective, but that aside; why would objectivist object or ignore her observation. That's exactly what was intended by our forefathers...(and I'll state it differently) as a community in consensus.
I'll even say it the Mark Hamilton way: "The only valid purpose of government is protection only".
All else is governed by the individual and the markets the individual creates.
The individual has a right of self protection so a group of individuals defined by property in common has that same right is what I think she was getting at.

Tech, I replied with my questions to clarify the initial question which I had asked.
This was not intended specifically for you, but rather for others who would like to address my question.

I can not answer your questions because I do not agree with the premise: a free and just nation does have the right to self defense and self determination as (as you have noted) it is delegated to representatives for it by its citizens.

If this point is granted, then the outrage has basis: citizens believe that their representatives are not acting in their best interest - especially if the other nation is also free and just.

Denying this point brings up a set of unresolvable contradictions - which I tried to elaborate in my list of clarifying question.

Up until today, I thought I understood the quote quite clearly. Now I realize that yes, I did understand it. Thanks JB. I shall eschew obfuscation.

That's twisting the language out of shape -- thanks for the clarification, though.

With regard to context, am I expected to quote the entire book? I included as much context as the Ayn Rand Institute thought was sufficient context on their web site.

You're right that Rand explained what she meant in terms of her own principles. I quoted it directly just so that this wouldn't be deemed out of context. If you are going to quote Rand's philosophy like a Bible thumper, you had better expect that when others do the same, to be held to the same standards.

The Indians did not have a concept of privately owned land. They exerted a tribalist political control that anyone had a right to reject.

You are re-interpreting Ayn Rand by dropping context. She explained what she meant in terms of her own principles.

Eud with respect, I asked a question earlier, one about what the you considered the moral imperative on this issue is. And the one I replied to above is what you came back with. A bunch of questions, some rhetorical some not.

I'm not one of the outraged ones on this issue.

We seem to be at loggerheads here and I have no desire to keep butting heads like a pair of rams over it.

I see enough acrostic conversations as it is.

Tech, with respect, I asked a question.

The definition of "scare quote" from wiktionary:
A quotation mark deliberately used to provoke a reaction or to indicate that the author does not approve of the term, rather than to identify a direct quotation.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scare_...

I'm not sure what you mean by scare quotes. She put the quotes in there deliberately to call attention to the phrase. In my opinion because the phrase was not defined precisely enough.

You are putting words in my mouth here, enough.

with walmart calling its employees "associates," the path has
been paved. . I wonder if the voice and stake in the operation
is pro-rated according to stock ownership. -- j
.

Nations only have rights as have been delegated from their people. In our case enumerated in the Constitution. Much as the government tries to ignore that.

Thanks, Technocracy. A mind is a terrible thing to have go to waste.

In re your father. Best wishes on his continued health JB

if that is true, then a corollary would exist with corporations,
formed by citizens and anointed with a degree of "personship" by law.

thus, I may appropriate the cable company's truck as my own
when I feel free, without recourse, in this world of the new view. -- j
.

then, the Cherokees own my property. -- j
.

please see my reply to khalling, Herb. . IMHO. -- j
.

I believe that William was explaining that Zen was demonstrating
that objectivism differs with Rand's statement above.

it appears to me that Zen is claiming that objectivism
and its grounding in personal property rights demands that
a national border be defended only when there is personal
property involved, and a specific offense against the property owner
has taken place. . no pre-emptive defense, no general defense.

thus, if a national park bounded the national boundary,
no defense would occur until the park had been crossed
and a specific property owner was offended. -- j
.