It really is that simple. A matter of principle, and a matter of ethics.
I agree ideally all borders would disappear and everyone would observe the right to life freedom and property. Defense of those rights would be in the hands of a local community. Unfortunately, there's no way currently for this to happen simultaneously around the world. Paraphrasing Milton Friedman you can't have a welfare state with open borders because everyone would raid the cookie jar. I don't even agree with that because everyone inside the border will raid the cookie jar the cookies being provided, through force, by other people AKA taxpayers. Bottom line I agree 100% in principle, but it ain't going to happen anytime soon.
You failed to answer the simple question: given the current state of subsidized immigration, including housing, food, expenses and more... Are you in favor of people who cross the border illegally being given those subsidized items?
It's easy to be a libertarian in favor of open borders WITHOUT subsidized government paying for those people to be here.
But that's not the situation.
Answer the reality not the fiction.
You’re a smart guy Justin, and I still have your Substack as one of the “recommended” on my own!
But you should do a follow up post to address Dave’s conflicting perspective -- which is generally shared by Rothbard and other great libertarian/anarchist thinkers who can’t just be dismissed out of hand -- more specifically
I agree with your perspective and focus on property rights as the framework on which to analyze this topic. Regarding your critique of private borders, are you referring to, for example, a case where a property A encircles another smaller property B, and owner A does not allow owner B to travel across property A, thereby prohibiting A from traveling anywhere? Sure, that could theoretically happen, but I expect you’d agree that any solutions must not assume the a-priori right to violate the property rights of owner A.