I keep having these epiphanies, so there it is.
We have to keep in mind what open border advocates say compared to what they truly mean and the implications for it.
When they advocates open borders, they are not advocating for the privatization of the land in question. That is a separate discussion entirely.
They are advocating that the government controlling those borders not place any restrictions on who comes, goes, and stays on that land.
Here’s the importance of that: Under this scenario, a government still has power over the border. It’s not the same as getting government out of entirely and having it fully privatized. Under that scenario, the private groups would take over and assume responsibility.
Under the open borders policy as advocated, governments are still in charge, but don’t do anything. However, this is not a reflection of the free market or privatization. They are using coercion to control land at the financial expense of people who have no say over how that property is managed. This is neither libertarian nor a reflection of the market.
In the free market, a private group would assume control of the land and financial obligation for it, but also place restrictions to fulfill both elements.
Open borders advocates’ argument on immigration and human movement, if applied elsewhere, would hold that drug dealers should be allowed to cook meth in an RV within National Parks because the state has no legitimate authority to enforce those rules because it has no just claim to that land it acquired through coercion and finances through theft. Also, in a libertarian society drug dealing would be legal and so would meth production, so the state has no right to enforce anti-drug laws, either.
However, any libertarian would half a brain understands that though the land is controlled and managed through theft and coercion, allowing actual anarchy as commonly understood in society, is nothing but chaos. Also, he would note that all of this is a distortion of the market due to government interference.
A private “national park” would be run by a group that has acquired the land and the money to manage it legitimately. To think they would have no rules about what is allowed on that land or who steps foot on it requires more than cognitive dissonance; it requires pure deceit and lying on the part of the person saying it.