I'm not denying the concept of property; in fact, my entire argument is based upon a thorough understanding of that concept.

There is no valid owner of the half-continent called "The United States" (or any other "nation"), and thus no valid defense of its "borders". Each parcel of private property may be validly owned and defended accordingly, but "national borders" imply ownership where none exists. Point to the person who may make this valid claim to ownership - there is none.

The border issue is definitively a red herring, as it distracts from the real causal factors of the issues underlying this discussion. People are being disarmed and encouraged to abdicate their natural responsibility for their own defense - something that can never be, as this responsibility is unalienable.

This is an issue that resides in a previous position along the logical chain that leads to the border dispute. It is causal to "necessity" of border defense, and therefore must be addressed before anything else further down the chain can be considered with any rationality. Any moment spent focused on borders carries the opportunity cost of not addressing the causal factors. Further previous in the chain of causation is the issue of this ubiquitous, false, religious belief in external authority (government) which lies at the foundation of all of this.

There are many such issues that must be adequately resolved before even approaching the topic of borders (which would be obviated long before its would-be appearance if those previous issues were addressed with clarity, making the entire topic entirely moot and not worthy of mention).

National borders are just another divide-and-conquer diversion created by those who benefit from such distractions. Nowhere in this public debate are the real issues brought to the table. Any attention drawn to this decoy is serving the furtherance of man's worldwide enslavement by validating the illusions that make true forward progress toward freedom impossible.