Savant

The individual could bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer. The plaintiff and the defendant would go to one of the private arbitration firms to have their dispute resolved. The private justice system is described at greater length in chapter 11 of The Problem of Political Authority, https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137281650/.

However, in real capitalist societies, lawsuits over product disputes are very rare, because companies almost always resolve customer complaints satisfactorily without a lawsuit (also because lawsuits in the current system are extremely expensive). I have virtually never had a company refuse to fix a problem. Indeed, empirically, companies bend over backwards to accommodate even unreasonable customer demands.

This particular scenario is also particularly improbable. Companies do not generally poison their customers. No business plan starts with, "Step 1: Feed our customers stuff that makes them vomit..."

I have never had a dispute with another community. I have lived in several different neighborhoods in my life. None of them has ever had a dispute with another neighborhood. I am not sure what sort of dispute this question is imagining. However, if your HOA somehow has a dispute with another HOA, they would resolve that by going to arbitration, just as in the case of any other dispute. They would not raise an army and declare a war. If my HOA board somehow gets filled with crazy people and declares that we're going to attack the condominium building across the street, I am not joining that war. And neither, I believe, will any of my neighbors.

Human beings own their own brains, and they have their own lives to live. They are not resources at the disposal of other people. You can't force someone to live somewhere they don't want to be just so that the people there can extract value from them. That's a form of slavery.

It's also extremely harmful to the world. If Sergei Brin had been forced to spend his life in Russia, Google would not exist. He would not have somehow overthrown Putin and converted Russia into a liberal, capitalist democracy; his life would just have been wasted. Of course, Brin is an outlier in terms of talent. But the qualitative point applies widely: the overwhelming majority of people can realize their potential vastly better in a society such as the U.S. than they can in a Third World nation. In some cases, the amount of value one can produce may be thousands of times greater.

If you learn that one of your neighbors recently beat up one of the neighborhood kids, is it okay for you to beat up another kid, in order to achieve symmetry? No; two wrongs don't make a right. If country A commits a rights-violation, this is not fixed by country B committing another rights violation against someone else.

In reality, immigration pressure between pairs of countries is mostly one-directional. It barely matters if Mexico prohibits Americans from migrating to Mexico, because hardly anyone would want to do so. It's still a rights-violation, but a relatively small one.

Taking into account, in addition, that immigration benefits the receiving country, the question is a little bit like: "If my neighbor shoots himself in the foot, should I shoot myself in the foot too?"

Anyone may put a fence around their own property. But they may not put a fence around other people's property. Donald Trump doesn't own America, nor do the 535 clowns in Congress, nor does the government. So they may not put a fence around it. In general, you can choose not to interact with some group of people if you don't want to, but you cannot declare that no one else in your society may do so.

It seems, by the way, that many people are unaware that there is already fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, across all of the likely crossing points. That was built during the Bush administration, long ago.

Oh no! Immigrants are doing productive work to support themselves? At the same time, more native-born Americans are sitting around in their parents' basements watching porn? Clearly this shows how diabolical the immigrants are. 

In seriousness, no, there is no phenomenon of "saturating" an economy. There isn't a maximum amount of work that can be done; the amount of work increases with the population. That's why, when the population doubles, you don't wind up with 50% unemployment.

Concerns about employment are particularly misplaced at a time (like now) when the unemployment rate is within half a point of the lowest it has been in the last 70 years. 

Granted, the people who just decided that they don't want to work aren't included (you have to be seeking work to count as "unemployed"). But if Americans don't want to work, that's hardly the fault of immigrants.

No one knows why the universe is here or why the Big Bang happened. If it has a purpose, that purpose isn't apparent (it doesn't act as if it has any purpose that we can discern), but that doesn't show that it doesn't have one.

It probably isn't merely chance, though. That is, there is probably some good explanation of why the universe is here, whether or not that involves someone's purpose.

Here are three scary Quran quotes:

Sura 4:34: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

5:38: "As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise."

9:5: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush."

That shows the insanity of our culture.

You can't conclusively prove that animals are conscious, so it's theoretically possible that they are zombies. You also can't conclusively prove that any other people are conscious, so it's theoretically possible that other people are zombies too. But this theoretical possibility doesn't make it morally permissible to torture a person; nor does it make it permissible to torture an animal.

I'd rather not, as I feel that I've done enough for now.