Jon Southall

If it's still unused then of course it can't be refused. Otherwise the only argument you need is "I'm using it right now" (and so on back in time until we find the original owner). That's it. No other justification needed. That's why I later mentioned that your options are then to persuade me to let you use it, or to force me off the land. I'm not sure what other standard you can use besides who is using the land (or who is using whatever it is in question). 
This is a derivative question that I think can only be answered after we establish what the basis for owning property even is. I'm not sure what to say about owning property for the specific purpose of not using it in the sense of conservation areas.
If the land was unoccupied and unused prior to my arrival, then all that matters is who got there first. The only defense I need is "I got here first." I would also say that figuring out how to use things with my mind is important for my existence, so it is entirely moral for me to be the one to decide in what way this property best suits my existence. 
I think this is a different question. This still sounds like you're asking what to do when the society you live in is irrational on a deep level that is actively detrimental to a rational life. I can think of a black person in the Jim Crow South during the fifties. The moral concerns in this situation have little to do with property. But these are problems to solve, not evidence that homesteading (very very loosely defined as property first acquired through first use) is weak or a bad basis.
Some of your objections resemble positions or arguments dealt with by Nozick. I wrote about it here: 
 

I happened across this article:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/inside-donald-trumps-secret-ayn-rand-conspiracy/
My initial reaction was one of incredulity. Then laughter. I felt I must share it here as I know you are all secretly Trump lovers.
 

Trump, at Pence's suggestion, met with John Allison, who is a high-profile Objectivist businessman. So, clearly, the Objectivist conspiracy is happening.

An article like the Washington Post one appears every now and then. The characteristics of the genre are: 
the headline links Ayn Rand to something or someone that would alarm the typical reader There are two sub-genres (sometimes mixed in a single article)
the content shows a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Ayn Rand, or the content shows that that there really is not link One can understand the former as being a misunderstanding, a lack of attempt to understand, or a smear. However, the second type is interesting too. Why would a journalist write a headline that is obviously only slightly-related to the content? One possibility is the writer is assuming the reader already brings a negative opinion of Rand and will be happy to apply it to whatever alarming thing the article is actually about.
I'm a bit cynical though. I hypothesize that: Ayn Rand's name is well-known and click-stream data indicates that an Ayn Rand mention in a headline increases the number of clicks significantly. So, "Trump is Ayn Rand Fan" (or even the headline of Tracinski's article for that matter) plays the same role as "10 Hollywood Sex Idols who now work at McDonald's".
The Washington Post article can't be  dismissed as mere click-bait, though I think that plays a role in the headline. There was a similar article in the New York Times. Onkar Ghate refers to them in this article, and provides some commentary.
 
 

I think it unlikely that Donald Trump has read many books of more than two hundred pages, books without pictures, that is. He may have watched a video of The Fountainhead, starring Gary Cooper. Critics of Ayn Rand are often trying to fit her words into some narrative taken out of context. I think this passage from Atlas Shrugged, covers it:
"It is a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting corners--a conspiracy that unites by links of evasion all those who pursue a zero as a value:...(she lists a series of qualifying prototypes, including the Trump-like:) ...businessman who, to protect his stagnation, takes pleasure in chaining the ability of competitors..."--from, This is John Galt Speaking; p. 1047.
Conspiracy, indeed, but not of one inspired out of Objectivism.

I really like ARI's focus on students in the last few years, particularly the shift away from as much activism, and more on personal development, social-networking and entrepreneurship. 
That kind of effort does not have quick and immediate results outside the group itself, but a few good people, united by respect and friendship, and with some shared understanding of Objectivism could lead to something, sometime... probably good.

I'll double check it when I read the other pages you noted, as I think she labels them as -existents- (like actions or concepts) and not things or entities. Or that she clarified they are not independent of any physical entity, thus are not "immaterial" as far as causality. This would mean there is no mental causation that lacks physical characteristics, by her view - it is still physical causality when you reduce it to the perceptual level as you must do for anything to be validated. But, we'll talk about this one later.
To believe in -only- physical entities doesn't deny the mental realm. The mental realm is all action. The mental realm is real. But it isn't immaterial causality.
To be clearer: before I meant to say that there is no such thing as a concrete (an entity) that is non-physical. For Rand to make any sense, "mental entity" must be a different sense of entity than "perceptual whole", which is fine to do. If she doesn't, her theory on free will violates/contradicts what she says on reducing concepts and linking concepts to reality objectively.

Snerd, could you at least try to be a bit more discriminating before casting aspersions.

I abstained until 5:30pm. Then I got restless. I'm not going to "kiss and tell" though.
When asked, prior to leaving the "9—5", if I wanted to venture who was going to win, I simply responded with "The one who gets the most votes."
Out of 14, 500+ registered voters in my precinct, I was the 748th to cast a ballot.

Abstained, they both make my skin crawl. I don't see an advantage of keeping one of them out over the other, but if I did I still wouldn't want to vote for either of them. Johnson isn't good enough nor has a big enough public "blip" for me to make a statement vote.
The worst part of this season was the added public division. I don't know the greater significance, if any, but at minimum it was stupid for everyone to spend 3 months hating on people they got along with before.

Ok. I misunderstood the intention of your posting of her video. But do you at least see our problem here? The candidate most like an Objectivist is Libertarian Gary Johnson, but he lacks a serious, national, political focus. It's like he's running for governor again. Very uninspiring and seemingly aloof to truly important, history-making issues, such as the war against Islamic fundamentalism and the corruption of the American Establishment. Still, I might vote for him at the last minute, since I'm in California and another Hillary vote is nearly worthless here, except perhaps as part of the general, popular-vote protest against Trump.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
From the quote source:
The above, in the reference shown, is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish born British lawyer and writer (1747-1813). However, there is some doubt about the original author, although the quotation has been often repeated by knowledgeable people. Certainly, the principle was well known to our Founders, and to informed writers of that period.
For more detail about the question of attribution, http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html
 

I view them as equal. It's more like picking which eye to put the flaming stick into. To avoid this, better candidates need support, whoever they are. After you vote, what will you do? I say it's short-term thinking to pick Clinton or Trump, with no apparent post-election plan.

That's why I see it as a false alternative. And that's because we, the People, can appoint better candidates. On that we agree. I won't speculate anymore as to how it has come to this travesty; from here out, it's a matter of getting over it.
Off hand, I recall that one of the Founders warned that democracy would be the ruin of the United States, when the people started expecting "free things" from their government. I don't remember exactly who or how that sentiment originated.

I might be writing in Evan McMullin. https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues
This isn't some belief that he could win, but it isn't without strategy either. All I will really be able is to call attention to actually good people. Trump or Clinton are both tragically bad, so my strategy is to at least locally talk about potential ideas or people to win in 2020. We're already screwed now. Better to plan for the aftermath.

I was a leave voter. I don't regret my vote, my decision wasn't based on misinformation (of which there was certainly a lot of during the campaign). The economic impact of the outcome was not a surprise to me - I wrote to friends and colleagues about it on 6th June.
Longer term, being free of the EU is the best decision the UK could have made economically.
The City will be the hardest hit, as well as some big businesses. As an Objectivist I am pro capitalism, pro free trade. However, the "too big to fail" banks and other businesses are what Rand called the worst of all economic phenomena - private businesses with government help. If Brexit means these entities struggle or if it bursts the global pyramid scheme then I will watch and have the courage to shrug. We've had enough of working 7 days a week to support failing economies, failing businesses and corrupt, unaccountable politicians.
We need to diversify as a nation and allow genuine entrepreneurs - who don't need bailouts and subsidies - to prosper in hopefully what will be a better trading and regulatory environment.. We need to go back to the UK that wanted to do business, and real business. We will still welcome people of value from anywhere in the world to join us.
It also means having real leaders is of huge value now - we will need an early General Election. I would like to see the new British constitution take shape.
There is a lot of work to be done now, but for those in the UK who love their life, for those who love freedom and being productive with their time, this is a great opportunity and something to be hugely excited about.

Selectivity can create almost any impression.
For example, with a little music, narration, and a some intelligent cutting, you'd swear you would get to watch a happy movie if you went to see [The] Shining:
 
 

Well that's barely the beginning of it. Someone should actually write up an explanation on how insane it would be to vote for Hillary as an Objectivist. I'll probably do it if nobody else does.

I meant the Welfare State flowing towards the member states from the European Union. The member states had already various degrees of WS. It is in the 80s that the EU itself started pushing towards a unified WS philosophy – level playing field, you know :-)

Like most things, I'm no expert on this subject matter. All that I have going for me is a certain amount of years living as a human -- but this is enough to at least have developed some opinions (whether those turn out to be correct or not).
It seems certain to me that "mind" exists, and of course that "matter" does as well. Thus, before we try to avoid the dangers of "dualism," I would begin by throwing out any "reductive" approach which seeks to deny either the existence of matter/existence or mind/consciousness.
It equally seems certain to me that this mind is efficacious -- that there exists will or volition in some form -- and thus I would also reject any form of "epiphenomenalism," insofar as I understand that approach (though what reading I have done on the subject has at times left me feeling a bit unclear), or determinism.
Where I reject "dualism" is in any suggestion that mind and matter are somehow unrelated, or that mind can exist without matter. Again: mind and matter each exist. Furthermore, I do not believe that they are the same thing -- the mind is not, in itself, matter. This is perhaps enough for some to account me a "dualist," yet I believe it's the truth. The brain is matter, but the mind is not (just as chairs are made of matter, but the concept "chair" is not). Yet the mind cannot exist without the brain, and can perhaps be said to be a function of the brain (or certain brains, living human brains, at least); a la "mind is what the brain does." Where a living human being is concerned, the particulars of the material arrangement give rise to phenomena which are not themselves material, and yet which do have practical and observable consequence on the material world.
If this does not exactly solve the "mind/body problem" as conceived by some, I'm okay with that. It's not my intention to address that problem, exactly, except to hold to those things which I believe are true, based on my experiences. And all of the above, I believe are true: mind exists as does matter; mind is efficacious on matter; mind exists as a function of matter, and depends upon the same. To argue otherwise, I believe, is to argue against the human experience.

I like that you drew a connection from something apparently so personal as assertiveness in relating to people to these two articles. I'll read them with this connection in mind. Thanks

I think you're being incredibly presumptuous and unreasonable.
Is that what we should have felt for James Taggart's wife in AS? Or should we have felt a sense of pity, a sense of sorrow. When life is your standard of value, choosing death is the most serious choice you can make in your whole life. It's not something you choose lightly. Watching someone evaluate whether there is still any value in their life and trying to influence them that there isn't, at a time where their emotions are running high and they are vulnerable, says something about the person doing that. Why would that behaviour be a value to them? Because they take pleasure from the suffering of others. Are you saying you would have joined in the filming and taunting?
You ask about shared values, well you must be able to contemplate a life not worth living. Everyone has a point where the scales would tip one way more than the other under some set of circumstances, even if that point is remote. And if you encountered someone in that situation, you would have empathy because you would understand their pain. It is your lack of understanding of what the suicidal person's situation means to them which explains your lack of feeling, it comes from a place of ignorance.
I think you are misrepresenting Objectivism. It is one thing the altruist telling us to sacrifice ourselves to others, which we must rightly oppose, but quite another to say, this means I must be unmoved by suicide where someone could arguably be said to be sacrificing themselves. We don't know whether it is in fact a sacrifice. They are freeing themselves from a world of pain. How do you know if they deserve it or not? My default position is that they don't, until I have reason to think otherwise. To hold your position, you must think of man as primarily evil. This is not the Objectivist position - certainly not Rand's as she is on the record of rebuking religions for exactly that presumption. 

Jonathan. It's great to see your contributions to this forum, I thank you.

Obviously because he is the soil of all evil.

In my experience people use it to mean certain Objectivists, dogmatic and unwilling to think for themselves. Among them are the ones who liked Maxfield Parrish but threw out their posters when Rand called his work "trash".