Diary of A Dissident: “Anarchists” advocating “immigration control.”


Property Feuds

The one (and probably only) criticism which communists are correct in making is that simply claiming or sectioning areas does not create property. This seems to be the logical stance stemming from Lockean property concepts, self-ownership, etc: Production is the basis of rightful ownership, for how can someone own something which has not been produced, or has not been “touched” by labor?
I have had discussions with advocates of capitalism who do not follow through with this. They often believe simply declaring something is yours makes it true with no labor (when it comes to land), but this makes no sense. It’s the same logic as the state claiming open expanses are their “jurisdiction.” More of a continuation of feudalism than Lockean property rights.
The image below was put forth in a debate group, and the discussion became quite contested, even between so-called “right wingers” who say they advocate property, etc., who were using it as a way to prove the free market can properly and efficiently handle environmental issues (which I agree with). I would however argue (as did others in the group) that this is not consistent with Lockean concepts of property, individual property rights, or free market principles.

I find it interesting that this debate is so heated and that people think this is a legitimate claim.

Apparently the logging company “bought” it from the State, who cannot be said to have actually owned 400,000 acres of untouched rainforest, as no labor as been put into it, and the State is a thief to begin with. The logging company surely would own that which is produced afterward, but they do not actually own the rest of the 400,000 acres unless they were actively using it for logging.
To say otherwise would be to say I could stand on the beach and claim the entire coast as mine, and prevent anyone else from stepping foot on it.
Of course everything the state does is funded by stolen money so they can never rightfully own anything, but aside from that, no one actually created any property on these untouched lands.


This is also the reason land can become so expensive. At the risk of being called a communist, there is what can be called an “artificial scarcity” in place in the so-called Market, because the state uses (along with other firms) the threat of force to prevent people from homesteading on what is clearly unowned land. which illegitimately lowers the supply thus raising the price as land is generally highly sought-after. 

property 2.jpg

As I said, this is more of a continuation of feudalism than a conception of Lockean property norms.

By my view this is not at all consistent with free market capitalism or property rights, but it seems that this is one of the main defining characteristics of “capitalism” according to communists.

Diary of A Dissident: Selected Subversion No. 5: “Immigration Control”

What right does the State have to tell you that you can’t be “here” ?


Immigration and emigration are both false concepts and improper to use in regards to human movement, since countries are false concepts and those words/ideas are entirely dependent on the concept of countries. The proper term would simply be migration.

As countries do not actually exist, that is, they are not legitimate property boundaries or constructs, there are no “immigrants,” only migrants who are being extorted by way of “immigration laws.”


Individuals who say they favor “immigration laws” due to the potential threat of “immigrants” either threatening them directly or by way of “voting” for the expansion of State intrusion must logically advocate perpetual “immigration control,” for one can never know who might be a terrorist, Democrat, or Republican.


It is true that migrants may one day threaten you, but “immigration laws” necessarily imply a threat against everyone living in the “country” for the potential crimes of others.


It’s logically impossible for state borders to be consistent with individual property rights. State borders and “immigration control” are conceptually an assault on private property rights by default, as the State arrogates to itself the “power” to decide who can and cannot live “here,” which includes all properties within their alleged “jurisdiction,” implying that no one but the State actually owns any property.


The argument that “immigration control” can be legitimate only rings true when it comes to explicitly “private” communities where such rules as “no advocating communism” are explicitly stated by a clearly defined owner or group of “owners/tenants in common.” Attempting to apply it to the current situation regarding State borders fails since “we” do not currently live in a “private” community, are not “joint-owners” of the “country,” “tenants in common,” or any such thing.

Applying the argument to the current situation can only come about through the delusion that the “country” exists and “we” own it.


State immigration control is simply the violent manipulation of the housing and labor markets. The manipulation of “society.”


“Immigration control” advocates have gone off the deep end and begun to claim that they are the owners of all “lands” said to be held by the State, but the illegitimacy of “national parks” is not based on the fact that the State is an extortionist, it’s more-so based on the fact that no one actually homesteaded expanses of those lands. Apparently they have completely forgotten about the Lockean conception of property which itself is the logical basis for rightful ownership (production).

A “tax payer” is not justified in stopping an “illegal” from homesteading in some open forest the State pretends it owns, any more than a random “capitalist” or “communist” is justified in stopping people from homesteading such areas.

Are they going to show up in some former “national park” and kick someone out who has already built a home there, because they were robbed by the gang called the united states and he was born “in Mexico” ? Would they do that now, as they are currently being robbed by the state? If so then they are the aggressors, as paying taxes doesn’t mean you own something the State says they own but do not, just because they force you to pay and lie about their ownership. Clearly no one owns lands which have not actually been homesteaded.

If they think they own huge expanses forests because the state robs them, they’re delusional. That’s more of a throwback to feudalism than a Lockean conception of property, as they are making the claim that anyone can own land without actually laboring on it; without actually exerting their will upon it.