No one cares about you 100%, not even your own family. That is a reality of life, of human action — we do first what is best for us, except in rare circumstances. Before we perform an action, we subconsciously make the decision based on our desires. It takes conscious action to go against what is best for us in order to make a decision that would help someone else. This is normal, and this should be embraced. The survival of the human species would be at stake if we gave in to the needs of others without thinking of our own survival.

The best human action that can be performed is also the basic tenet of capitalism: two individuals coming together, voluntarily, to make an exchange of goods and/or services, with an outcome of profit or gain for both. Two people together can both profit with neither party feeling a loss.

The worst loss in an interaction between two individuals is the loss of life. The second worse loss would be the loss of property (or tools) or the use of property (or tools). The third worse loss would be the loss of the ability to make these voluntary interactions with other consenting adults. As is the case with almost every human action, the government wants to tax, restrict, regulate or criminalize entirely many human actions, or keep those interactions for the government alone.

The immigration issue, to me, creates criminals out of both parties. The neo-liberals (the Democrats) want to perform the second worse loss of the list above. The neo-conservatives (the Repulicans) want to perform the third worse loss of the list above. I believe they are both tyrants, and both need to rethink their beliefs.

When someone takes my property (including my tools, my body or my money) to give to another, without my consent, this is theft. This is counter basic human rights, and it should not be permitted, even under the guise of government. I have no problem with immigrants (or citizens) doing anything with one another as long as I do not have to give up my land or my money for the action. I would prefer a voluntary choice to support (or deny support) financial or other support for the voluntary actions of others. Yet many immigrants who enter my village are supported from entry to death by the various government agencies, on my back. I don’t want to pay. I have no desire to help anyone that I can not hold accountable based on my morales and beliefs. I don’t want to help you, either, nor do I want to help many of my community who would rather waste their lives away with drugs and gambling than with productive labor. There are those I do want to help, but I can’t since I am helping both immigrants and citizens, against my will.

When someone takes my ability to exchange services or goods with other consenting adults, they restrain my most basic freedom. I have no problem with immigrants who come into my village as long as they restrict themselves to public land or they are invited by another individual to use that individual’s property. If a landlord believes a person will pay the rent and not destroy their property, they will be given a lease. This is a mutually beneficial exchange between two individuals, yet government may prevent it based on where the person was born — within what legal lines they may have been born in, even if those lines didn’t exist a few weeks, months or decades ago. If a person wants to work for me cheaper than another, the government can prevent this, too, as the person may not be licensed to work within my market, even if my customers would see the same quality product or service at a cheaper price.

An immigrant can create a loss for me by performing a real property crime against me — hurting my body, my property or my tools. Yet this immigrant is no more or less likely to perform a real property crime than a citizen, so the thought that borders and border patrolling is important for security is a non-issue. The amount of people murdered a year by citizens far outnumbers any amount of people killed by immigrants, making the issue a debate topic only for the cameras and the polls, but one that is not necessary to control. Security is performed by individuals protecting their property and the property of their neighbors. Security is not performed by federally unionized workers with shiny badges and great power over the rights of the citizens. I don’t carry my papers with me, and you should not accept the law that would require it.

There are no “American jobs” and there are no “societal needs” that I have to worry about. All I can, and will, worry about is what is best for me, right now, and every moment of my life. You are exactly the same way. When we actually stop to think of another, we make a conscious decision to support another person at some expense to our own lives. Yet this is not the norm, not the basic survival instinct that we all as humans share. This is how it will always be.

Immigrants and citizens don’t bother me unless they take my money, my ability to exchange goods or services voluntarily with anyone else, or harm my body or property directly. There is no reason to believe that immigrants (legal or illegal) create any of these losses more or less than citizens, so the issue to me is nothing to worry about. As long as I don’t support anyone with my dollars involuntarily, or am forced to give up my property against my will, or have my body or property harmed, or can not make voluntarily exchanges with another consenting adult, they are welcome to go anywhere they please.

The government is the evil, but those who support both sides of the government debate are criminals, too. Don’t tread on me, and get off my lawn.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalist forum.

by LexNaturalis

[Editor: As a counter-point to yesterday’s article, Lex Naturalis provides a Natural Law perspective to the immigration issue]

People interact with one another every day. All human interaction is done to achieve something and it is always something that will benefit the individual that initiated the interaction. There are no selfless deeds done in society. Everything done has an ulterior motive and this is natural. If a man does something he despises to help his wife, then he is helping himself by doing what he feels is best. If a person gives their money to the poor because of a religious belief, then they believe they are receiving spiritual rewards for their actions. No rational person can do something without considering what benefit he receives from the action being taken.

Understanding the concept of self-preservation and self-betterment is fundamental to understanding the proper role of society and government. What is the purpose of government if not to benefit the members of the society governed? People would not cede their natural rights to a governing body if they received nothing in return. In fact, a government that does not provide more for the citizen than the citizen gives up in natural rights is not only ineffective but also unjust. A just society, founded on Natural Law, will have a government that provides benefits to the citizen that he cannot attain on his own. There is no other reason for giving up your rights and becoming a citizen of a civil society. No rational man would give up his rights without receiving something greater in return; in fact, a man that would do so cannot properly be called rational.

Given that civil society serves to benefit and better the citizens of the society, it can be said that citizenship in that society is not a right. The members of the government, and the society, are not obligated to help someone just because they happen to live in close proximity to members of that society. A man who does not wish to cede his natural rights to become a member of a society has no right to receive any of the benefits of that society just as a man in a state of nature is under no obligation to trade his apple for another man’s fish despite the fact that the second man may have a strong desire for the apple.

Taking into account the aforementioned it should be understood that citizenship is not a right and membership into a society is not a right. Likewise, receiving the benefits of a society without being a member is by no means a right. This concept can now be applied to the idea of immigration. Any person that breaks the laws of a just society is in violation of Natural Law and is in a de facto state of war with that society and all members within that society. Any person who defies the laws of a nation and seeks to attain the benefits of that society is akin to a warrior seeking a tent from the camp of his enemy. A society has the right to defend its borders from enemies and a person that seeks to break the laws of that society is an enemy.

This does not mean that physical violence should be done to the illegal immigrant or that brutality should befall the illegal immigrant. It does mean that the person is living in a state of war with the society and that he should receive none of the benefits of that society. A just society would, by no means, prevent a citizen from rendering life-saving aid to an illegal immigrant, but it could prevent citizens from giving any societal benefit to that person.

Discuss this article at the anarcho-capitalism forum.

—
LexNaturalis is a freelance writer and thinker from central Pennsylvania where he lives with his wife. He promotes personal responsibility to augment personal freedom.