I disagree with the logic that we need to violate people's property rights in order to protect people's property rights. I disagree with the tax farm, and I disagree with the violence inherent in the nation-state. I therefore do not wish to protect it by compelling everyone within it to pay for the enforcement of borders around it.
It is much harder to get rid of statist solutions to social problems, then it is to add a new statist solution to social problems, even if those social problems are themselves caused by previous statist solutions.
I think we both agree on this fact. The difference is, you use it argue that our only viable solution to our current social problem is another statist solution, whereas I use it to argue that another statist solution only perpetuates the increase of statism as it too will be more difficult to get rid of once in place.
If I am against the existence of a geographical area which gives a group of people a monopoly on violence and gives it's tax livestock the ability to vote for different ways to use it's violence monopoly to fund various programs, then it follows that I am not going to support another statist program, and especially not one designed to build a wall around the tax farm I don't think should exist.
My stance entails the end of Nation-States, which is unimaginable to most, but it is the only ethical path forward, and so I think it is inevitable. I think we get there only be refusing to participate in the current violence based system. I don't think we can use the violence based system to solve the problems it is causing.
I, therefore, would like to ask you to please afford me the respect of not being forced to pay for your government program. I would like the freedom to spend my money on ways of protecting my property and rights that I find to be right, true, just, and virtuous.
Please do not support violence against me if I don't want to fund your opinion. That's all I'm asking.