I don't know about "national" but I'm not against property owners coming together in mutual defense of one another's enclosures. I wouldn't be a supporter of property owners coming together to violate the property of others though. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if it doesn't.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think I understand. Let me first say I agree with you on most things, I just haven't put a lot of thought into voluntarism and borders specifically so I haven't had the chance to hash it all out. I guess When I say collective borders I was thinking of all of us who live inside the territory of this particular state. Of course groups of land owners can band together to aid eachother and I suppose that would also be considered a collective action. I've always said that collectivism is important but only secondary to individualism.
I guess what I meant to ask. The lines on the map, where a state has said "this is our line, we say who can cross it" is actually an illigitimat eline right? because it only exists as an enforcement of a state. The borders on a purley voluntaryist map would be constantly changing based on individual landowners decisions, preferences , and incentives to voluntarily work together.
My position would be that drawings on paper don't establish a border and that there would need to be an enclosure in the claimed territory in order for there to be a border.
So to answer your question, no, lines on maps aren't sufficient. The map isn't the territory.