I fully agree that the only legitimate borders are those that encircle private property. What I don't understand, I guess, is what the open border position is then. To say that the border should be open because the state is a fictitious entity whose borders are arbitrary doesn't make any sense; an open border presupposes the existence of said arbitrary borders.
The only way one can advocate for an open border is as part of the state paradigm. To argue that there shouldn't be force used against people moving across unowned land absent a state obviates the need to advocate for open borders, as no borders of the type one is advocating to open exist. If they don't exist, what's there to open or close?
This is an excellent point. I agree 100%. Thank you for elucidating that for me. I think this is maybe where the breakdown in communication between the two camps is happening. I am advocating the dissolution if the state, and thus, state "borders." The other camp often assumes I advocate state open borders. I do not.
That has to be where it's happening. I can't tell you how many people I've seen declaring emphatically that the state must be abolished only to turn around and declare "we" need "open borders." If the state is abolished, there's no border to open, so the argument for an open border is obviated. I'm glad I could help :)