When discussing the control of state territorial borders, a false comparison must be avoided to accurately argue for the supremacy of private property lines as borders. During such a discussion, people often use a faulty analogy when arguing for the support of state borders.
The analogy often used is that the purpose and characteristics of a state border can be compared to a gated (private) community, rightfully restricting access to outsiders when deemed necessary. However, using such an analogy is faulty. How do I defend this claim? By stating another, age old analogy- You can’t compare apples to oranges.
Apples and oranges are similar items, but certainly not the same. State borders and property line borders are similar at a glance but are most certainly not the same.
How? Each type of border is created and controlled by different entities with each serving a different purpose.
Differences Between the Two Borders
A state border is a line of demarcation created by a state through conquest or acquisition. A property line is created by an individual or group of individuals either through homesteading or acquisition involving a voluntary transaction with other individuals.
A state border is controlled by the same central ruling authority that claims control over the territory within these borders. A private property line border is controlled by the individual or groups of individuals who rightly, through homesteading or voluntary transaction, claim ownership of territory within those property line borders.
The purpose of a state border is to restrict and regulate the movement of individuals (whether its own subjects or subjects of other states) and commercial goods. The purpose of a private property line border is to restrict entry to only those individuals granted permission by a particular property owner (and to his property, only) and to restrict or prevent any unauthorized usage of that property owner’s territory.
One similarity of the two kinds of borders must be mentioned- The nature and extent of control of state borders can, depending on the type of state controlling authority, be petitioned and influenced, to some extent, by the subjects contained within such borders. It is the prerogative of the state’s ruling authority to reject any such influence. The controlling authority (owner) of private property can be petitioned and influenced, if it so chooses by other property owners or individuals, but this petitioning may also be ignored, if it serves the interest of the property owner.
It’s obvious that the territory contained within the state’s borders (and to which it claims control) also contains territory contained within the borders of property owners (to which these owners claim control).
The state’s controlling authority justifies this overlap of territory by claiming to protect property line borders within its domain from trespassers and invaders from outside the state’s borders that contain its entire domain.
The conflict arises when the interests served by the state’s borders do not serve or directly conflict with the interests served by the property owner’s borders.
The state may restrict or prevent movement of people or goods across its state borders at the expense of the property owner who may value and welcome such people or goods to cross his private property line borders. Or the opposite might be the case- The state allows people or goods to cross its state borders that the property owner perceives as a threat to his person or property. He would prefer that such people or goods not be allowed across the state’s borders.
In both cases, the property line owner must now petition (beg) the state to serve the interest of the property owner. The state is petitioned to allow such passage in order to receive the benefits of invited guests or desirable goods, or to disallow passage of the same to receive the protection of his property that the state has promised.
The state is also petitioned by individuals residing within the state’s border who are not property owners. Their desires regarding the control of the state’s borders may directly conflict with those of property owners.
The property owner should now be able to see the superior nature of property line borders versus state borders. The unreliability of state controlled borders should be viewed as a threat to the property owner, not an asset as an extra layer of protection.
The state’s negligence in securing its borders (for whatever reason) necessitates a drastic change of policy from the state’s controlling authority toward its borders. If such a change does not occur, the property owner will eventually view such unreliability as a reason to necessitate state abolition. After all, why pay for a protector that doesn’t protect you?
Further, individuals that are not even property owners may support the state’s border policy that threatens the property owners’ interest. When such interests ally with the interests of the state (regarding its borders), it creates an even more onerous predicament for the property owners.
In this situation, the state’s borders no longer serve the interests of property owners. The state claims it exists to be the ultimate protector of individuals (its declared ‘subjects’) and their property. Yet, it allows passage of outsiders (subjects of other states) that directly threaten the property of these same ‘subjects.’
Such a condition is not acceptable to the property owner. He now sees that the state no longer serves his interests. He now views the state as even a direct threat to the continued existence of his property. The state is no longer reliable as “protector.” An institution that no longer serves it purpose no longer need continue to exist. The property owner now sees abolition as a necessary action.
But first, the state must be held to its promise of using its borders to protect the property owner. It must be compelled to prevent entry to any more undesirable visitors (as perceived by the property owners) and any removal of those previously allowed entry.
Abolishing the state first, before securing its borders would leave a dangerous, chaotic atmosphere for property owners to create there new system of protection. Private defense agencies (protection agents for property owners) and protective alliances between property owners must be allowed the time and conditions conducive to creating and deploying such protective mechanisms. These mechanisms will now be controlled exclusively by property owners. Any agents assisting the defense of these property line borders will be under the total control of its customers, the property owners. This contrasts with their previous agent protection (the state) which ultimately decided, itself, the nature and extent of protection given its subjects.
State borders (false borders) are arbitrary lines set by state criminals and operated for the benefit and strengthening of the criminal mafia that operates the state's protection racket. With state borders, the enslaved subjects must beg or bribe their ruling masters to restrict access from outside invaders bent on destroying private property lines.
The given example of a gated community is private property, marked by property lines (true borders). Any uninvited visitors would be considered trespassers and subject to whatever action deemed necessary by the property owners. If the visitors refuse to leave, they could be righteously eliminated. No other authority need be petitioned for protection. The private property owner is now complete master of his domain.
This now accurate comparison establishes the obvious supremacy of private property lines as borders, exclusively, versus the additional, ineffective, duplicitous, and even hazardous state borders.
Resistance is Mandatory