Pro-border ancap is a contradiction

Ancap believes in the NAP, which implies:

1. Ends don’t justify the means. You can’t violate the NAP if it results in a “greater good” or a “lesser evil”
2. Two wrongs don’t make a right. If your neighbour kills your dog, that doesn’t justify you killing his dog too.
3. Land is owned by the one who homesteads it.

If you disagree with one of those, you’re not an ancap, and i’ll explain why.

These are the most common pro-border arguments i hear from self-proclaimed “ancaps”:

Open borders would result in way more property rights violations, so the state is justified in excluding “incompatible cultures” that don’t respect property rights

Point 1. Statist borders violate property rights, it’s not morally justified to do one kind of property rights violations if it prevents more violations. If i own a farm and offer work and housing to foreigners on my own private property, the state would violate my property rights by deporting them. Why should my farm suffer because they could violate your property rights?

If point 1 didn’t apply: Universal healthcare would greatly reduce mortality, disease, blah blah, therefore it’s ok to tax people to pay for such program. Not very ancap.

The state is subsidizing undocumented migrants by giving them housing healthcare and so on that are paid by my taxes

Point 2. The problem is state subsidies, not undocumented migrants. State citizens can get subsidies too, why is it different when undocumented migrants get them? “Those who would give up essential Liberty (open borders), to purchase a little temporary Safety (less taxes for state subsidies), deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” -benjamin franklin

If point 2 didn’t apply: You sold a shotgun with a slightly shorter barrel than legal, therefore the state can murder your wife and son. Or, at some point in the past the land you live on was stolen, so the state can steal it from you. Not very ancap.

You can kick out trespassers from your property, so the state can do the same by kicking out undocumented migrants.

Point 3. You own your property, anyone who enters without your permission can be kicked out, yes. But the state doesn’t legitimately own the land it’s kicking out undocumenteds from. If i settle a random island in the middle of nowhere, and invite some foreigners on it, the state has absolutely 0 right to deport them from my own private property.

If point 3 didn’t apply: The state owns your property, therefore it can legitimately confiscate guns from you, force you to pay taxes, send you to a gas chamber, and so on. Not very ancap.

The state owns public infrastructure, it can thus set rules on who can move there.

First, let’s say the state demands that all gun owners who enter public property must give up all their guns before they can return home. Not very ancap. According to this statement, this is completely legitimate, yet it’s obviously wrong. The state built public infrastructure from taxes, it does nominally own it, but when you dig deeper, it doesn’t.

Second, innocent before proven guilty. If i have undocumented migrants on my property, the burden of proof is on you/the state to prove that they moved through public infrastructure when traveling to my property. Afterall, they could’ve parachuted onto my property. But the state, when doing deportations, does none of that.

tl;dr You can’t be an ancap and support statist borders at the same time, as supporting borders requires you to compromise fundamental ancap philosophy.