A lot of californians moving to the Pacific Northwest has been disruptive. This does not justify interstate immigration restrictions.
A welfare state , government monopoly schools, and centralized healthcare systems struggle under the burden of poor immigrants, but by the same logic then, we should be able to forbid the poor here from having babies, too. The problem is divorcing essential services from market transparency and hiding costs and needs alike behind a veil of bureaucracy.
Your argument presupposes that governments provide an essential good or service to society. I argue government is instead the biggest Mafia. National borders are mafia turf. Taxes are mafia extortion. Heck, organized crime syndicates are even known for providing charity and emergency services in many cities, and they do keep rival criminals in check. This doesn't mean mafias are necessary for a healthy city.
Society needs many services governments presently provide, but that does not justify government. As other analysts have suggested before, suppose government monopolized shoes. We all need shoes. But no matter how ill-fitting and ill-made those government shoes may be, a generation accustomed to government "right to shoes" would balk at suggestions shoes could be better provided by market means. "But who would make the shoes, and where? Out of what materials? How would they be distributed? What about people with little money, do you think they can afford $1000 Italian loafers? You just want the poor to go barefoot!" This same kinds of irrational arguments are raised when we suggest government police, courts, and borders are at best misguided, and at worst completely unnecessary obstacles. If we do need functional windows, do they need to be government windows? And do we in fact need these windows as your analogy suggests?
It all comes down to the question if you are willing to govern yourself. That is why I asked you, if you are willing to take into your own hands what is needed to have law and order within your surroundings. Since you cannot assume the good will of all people. You circumvented my question. Neither I nor you have a top solution to the problems we all face.
But it helps to ask the very essential questions, I think.
A government is not there to have it all fixed and done for the single individual, I agree. The less government, the less central, the less big organizations who were never elected but like to think in their tanks and sects all day long for "the whole world", the better.
But since the world is huge and since there are nations with borders, you cannot come up and decide that your nation doesn't need one and you and your little tribe can govern yourself. You just can't.
Cars are built by companies and shall be able to do so, not governments. We know where it leads when government wants to do it all. That is the problem. National governments need to secure the borders, need to spend the state money on necessarry infrastructure like streets, harbours, airports, public buildings and have its military ready to defend the populace.
All else is not their business but the business of the people who must be able to open up small, medium and big companies in order to function as a capable society. So they are able to feed themselves amongst each other and not having been fed by the holy government through oversized welfare progams. They fare well themselves if you leave them room to breathe and drop all this climate, gender, and DEI nonsense. For all the poor, disabled and otherwise needy ones, the society likes and will take care but making the whole of a society poor, disabled and otherwise needy, leads into desaster.