Borders violate the NAP in the first place and the government has no legitimate claim over all of this land.

But as played (them having taken ownership), you can't start applying the NAP at that point, because they already own it and should act accordingly (much like after they steal the money and build the road hopefully they can at least put stop signs in reasonable places .. and we don't regard this as breaking our right to travel).

Jeff, what I would ask you and Larken is: In a voluntary community, do you think anybody at all can show up and live in that community? Or is there some mechanism to make sure you're good/safe/etc?

I don't have an opinion on exactly what policies the government should take or whether Trump's positions are better than the mainstream, but I think you guys are wrong in your application of NAP here.

When somebody has ownership of something, it's theirs to make the rules for. So as long as the govt owns the land (which is inherently what we're talking about when we talk about state actors policing state borders), it's correct and consistent with the NAP going forward that they make decisions for the borders just like you decide who crosses your front door.

The focus should be on challenging the government's claim to ownership over land, NOT on challenging what they do next which is consistent with that claim.

It's you guys who aren't consistently applying NAP. (It's a bit like a referee who makes a bad call to try to offset a previous bad call, rather than just calling it fairly from here.)

And I'd even suggest it's something of a misdirection; the state doesn't mind the open-border argument one bit, but they're actually threatened by the root idea of unrightful ownership.