Jared, are you of the mind that we should have no "national" (aka collective) borders at all? I agree with what you wrote. "this is my property, you can pass through" or "this is my property, don't come in here." seems simple enough. Collective borders are just another way to tell private land owners what they can or can not do with their own property.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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.
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.