One of the most vile premises underlying the border wall (and there are many) is the the few should be sacrificed for the many. Self-interest should be sacrificed for the “public interest.” The government’s seizure of private land is just one example of this premise in action.
Most of the land needed for the border wall in Texas is privately owned. And many, if not most, of those property owners do not want to sell their land. But that hasn’t stopped the Trump Administration. What it cannot acquire with the voluntary consent of the property owner will be seized by armed government officials.
The number of property owners impacted by these seizures is relatively small. They are the few. The individuals who will allegedly benefit from the border wall is everyone else. They are the many. The few should sacrifice their land so that the many can be protected from immigrants.
From zoning to the FDA, from Social Security to food stamps, from building codes to rent control, virtually every government program and regulation is founded on the premise that the few should be sacrificed for the many. Most of these programs and polities enjoy widespread support. Most individuals accept the premise that some should sacrifice for the benefit of others. And they are particularly supportive when they are not among those making the sacrifices.
Sacrifice is widely regarded as a virtue, particularly when an individual sacrifices voluntarily. Sacrifice means giving up one’s values for something one values less or not at all. And according to many, individuals have a moral duty to sacrifice. Those who do not do so voluntarily should be forced to do so. And this is precisely what eminent domain and the border wall are doing.