I have simply stated the truth: that recognition of reality begins when we first define the limits of ourselves and separate that from the rest of the universe. The distinction between objects lies in identifying and defining the boundaries of those objects - where one object leaves off and another begins. That you choose to interpret that any differently than what I have plainly written is on you.

There are a couple of reasons that I will go into more detail about in a few days, probably more like a week. I am quite busy today, so for now, I will say that I do not accept some of the premises in the open immigration argument. My argument will address those premises, and starting from first principles, a discussion will ensue regarding rights vs. permissions, and where those rights come from. I am quite sure that multiple Objectivists will reject my premises, and they are entitled to do so.

The contradiction that you, Ayn Rand, and others do not recognize is that crossing a border without notification to the government of that nation is an act of force against every citizen of that country. A passport or visa check is not an undue burden on the immigrant any more than it is an undue burden on the citizen.

Then we will politely disagree. An open borders situation may be OK for individual migrants, but in the long run, a sufficient number of moochers will come in, regardless of a welfare state, that the host nation will cease to be worth migrating to. The situation in the 1800s in the US was acceptable. That is simply not possible anymore.

j; I don't disagree with the Virtue of Selfishness quote, I disagree with your interpretation and attempted application of it and the underlying principles and definitions provided by AR.

If you are going to rely upon quotes of Ayn Rand for your argument, please include those that are most appropriate:

The place and time was the Ford Hall Forum, Boston 1973. [8] There is a gap in the recording when the audience member asked his question. The moderator repeats the question in his own words:

“What is your attitude towards open immigration and what is your attitude towards the effect it may have upon the standard of living in this country? And does not this require that the answer is that you are, uh, opposed to both—”
At this point the original questioner interrupts to repeat the second part of his question: “Aren’t you asking a person to act against his own self-interest ... [inaudible].” The moderator repeats, not too coherently:
“Aren’t you asking a person to act in connection with his own self-interest in connection with his decision as to what to advocate?”

“You don’t apparently know what my position on self interest is.
“I have never advocated that anyone has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force. If you close the border to forbid immigration on grounds that it lowers your standard of living – which certainly is not true, but even assuming it were true – you have no right to bar others. Therefore to claim it’s your self-interest is an irrational claim. You are not entitled to any self-interest which injures others, and the rights of others, and which you cannot prove in fact, in reality to be valid. You cannot claim that anything that others may do – not directly to you but simply through competition let us say – is against your self interest and therefore you want to stop competition dead. That is the kind of self-interest you are not entitled to. It is a contradiction in terms and cannot be defended.

“But above all, aren’t you dropping a more personal context? [At this point she begins to become intense.] How could I ever advocate that immigration should be restricted [becomes very intense] when I wouldn’t be alive today if it were.”

And yes, I come to the same conclusion without reference to her quote and I don't count it as orthodoxy, but rather logical from 'first principles'. These are not insignificant matters for an Objectivist or a believer in individual freedom.

j; you are a scientist by education and practice, and although it may have been a number of years ago, the first thing you had to do to be able to learn your science was to learn the 'language' of your science, including basic definitions. Then you begin studying first principles and progressed from their and as you did, you also expanded your knowledge of the 'language' and definitions of your science along with knowledge of the science itself.

In order to continue to learn and progress, but also to communicate with others working within your science, you relied on that language and definitions and first principles. You certainly did not rely on a chemistry handbook to do more than be a memory jogger for a definition or a formula or a device you hadn't used since undergrad.

With the above in mind, please define or illustrate for me where you think I've mis or re-interpreted the application of a 'first principle' of Objectivism and why you believe that. I make no claim to any particular expertise on the life and quotations of Ayn Rand, but I am a well studied and erudite student of Objectivism and it's principles, particularly as applied in life and factual reality. Even saying that, I'm always interested in learning--so please elucidate.

Your bizarre philosophical rationalizations have nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy, which you both misrepresent and attack. We do not perceive entities by "boundaries defining ownership". Boundaries are a derivative concept. We know that we are distinct from the universe without the concept "skin". You are truly bizarre.

You know very well that no one has accused a direct quote of being a misrepresentation. The misrepresentation is the interpretation you are pushing and your slurs against people who know far more about Ayn Rand than you do.

So how does one recognize that one is separate and distinct from the rest of the universe? Boundaries. Borders. Delineations.

Our bodies are bounded or limited by our skin. Everything within that skin is deemed to be controlled by our minds. Everything outside our skin is deemed to be separate and apart from the immediate control of our minds and must be manipulated via extensions (hands, fingers, arms, legs, etc.) or tools (wrenches, saws, pliers, automobiles, ships, airplanes, etc.). We use tools and extensions to manipulate the universe around us, but we do so with the inherent recognition that we are not the tool - that it exists separate and apart from us. When we wield a tool, we claim ownership or dominion over it for that time as we directly control it. If we have purchased the tool, our ownership claim extends even to the passive existence of the tool, and our permission - or delegated authority - is required for someone else to lawfully use the tool.

And why? Because of the concept of property rights. Our properties - be they tools, land, etc., are bounded by either physical or logical delineations or boundaries expressing the limits of our direct or indirect control over them. But to dismiss that these boundaries exist is not only to deny property rights, but to deny the ability to separate one's self from the rest of reality.

Thank you.

The quoted material seems perfectly clear to me -- the nation has only those rights that the individuals composing it delegate to it. Attributing "personhood" or "ownership" to the nation as a unit is the fallacy of composition. jbrenner is right, both on fundamentals and the conclusion.

The statement at the top of the thread says what it says. As for the down-vote trolls being at it again, as per usual, I am not the downvoter. However, unlike how I frequently do, I am not going to restore your lost points.

I have read The Virtue of Selfishness now, and my quote was not a misrepresentation. It was in context. When I make my own interpretations, I say so.

A direct quote from ARI's web site and from The Virtue of Selfishness is deemed as a "misrepresentation". Olduglycarl's statement of "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." is what Rand said and what she meant.

The anti Ayn Rand down-vote trolls are at it again.

No "nation" has "rights" as an entity. Statists do not have any right to impose themselves anywhere, including their own claimed territory. It does not mean the the government of a free society is an entity with "rights". The people in a free society have a right to maintain their freedom and form of government protecting it, through the actions of its government. No government acts by "right".

What Objectivists do you claim are ignoring the statements? Brenner is misrepresenting them. The they do not mean that a "group" is a thing that has collectivized rights. A group is an abstraction referring to some individuals with something in common, regarded as the group for some specific purpose.

Geographical borders are not "inherent" in the "definition of reality". They are legal abstractions specified for a legal purpose. The axiomatic concept of existence does not mean "separate and distinctly recognizable from other entities and bodies within reality" as "a claim to borders". Physical boundary markers are added for the purpose of physically recording and specifying the locations of the legal definitions. They don't make plots of land or countries physical entities somehow deduced from the concept of existence. Those claims have nothing to do with Ayn Rand's metaphysics and epistemology.

One thought that occurs to me: The very first principle of Objectivism is existence: separate and distinctly recognizable from other entities and bodies within reality, correct? Is this not a claim to borders - and inherent in the definition of reality itself?

Borders are delineations of control or dominion, are they not? We claim ownership over our own bodies, but at best the concept and control of thought emanates from the physical regions of the brain rather than the foot or the hand, which are appendages. Thus our claim to sovereignty even over our own bodies (which argument we take for granted) is an argument for recognized boundaries of personal dominion/exclusive control. When we speak of personal property, our bodies are first, but not the only property over which we claim ownership. We claim not only the products of our minds, but land, homes, vehicles, etc. as being those things purchased or gained as a result of our productivity. Those things become portions of our dominions, do they not - extensions of our wills, tools of our intellects to carry out specific purposes?

In a nation of like-minded individuals who respect property rights and ownership claims, what are we actually respecting? The rights of a person to retain the fruits of his or her industry for their further use and purpose. Can the rights of protection of property rights be delegated to a national authority for prosecution? Absolutely. It is the primary purpose for government - or such is the argument. And the government's authority to protection of property extends only insofar as the summation of the individual properties of the people represented by that government, but within those boundaries it is as absolute as the individual's property rights.

Thanks, blarman.

Well said.

Yes you are expected to read the book to understand it. You can't learn a philosophy by reading disconnected out of context quotes. The Ayn Rand Lexicon is a reference book (compiled by Harry Binswanger and later donated for the ARI website) to bring related quotes on specific topics together, not a substitute for reading and understanding. It is not "Bible thumping" and ARI did not add your false interpretations misrepresenting Ayn Rand. Your attack is offsensive and irrational.