Borders and access control are legitimate in any society

With the recent borders debate ravaging the libertarian community, I feel the need to address perceptions about property and ownership that seem to stray from reality, or at the very least usefulness. For the record, this discussion will specifically be from an anarchist perspective, where the optimal situation would involve completely private ownership of all property, and the abolition of government would be the goal. This is the part we all agree on (anarchists, that is), so there is little debate to be had around the end goal.

Unfortunately, we do not live in the ideal situation right now, and may not experience it for a very long time, or even at all. So the question becomes, which actions are legitimate and which are not, regardless of the political system we live under. I have frequently heard, and sometimes even promoted, the idea that "the government doesn't exist". Or a similar argument is that because the government doesn't acquire any property legitimately, the property is in the same category as unowned land that has not been homesteaded. This is a key argument that I have determined to be demonstrably false. To clarify the issue, let's look at the most common analogy to the government: the mafia.

Let's say you're a store owner, and you with your fellow store owners are extorted by the local mafia on a regular basis. While discussing what to do with the other owners, you say 'if you think about it, the mafia doesn't exist'. At this point, you will be gawked at like a crazy person for good reason. Of course the mafia exists as a human organization. As a rule of thumb, if something can kill you, it's probably real.

After the extortion racket goes on for a bit, the mafia purchases and develops a local park. To appease the locals and maintain good PR, they allow general public access to this park. At this point would it make any sense to say that the local mafia doesn't own this park? Sure, they bought and built it with money they acquired through illegitimate means, but unless that issue is ever resolved, they own the park for all intents and purposes. It is arguable that possession is nine tenths of the law, but at the very least, possession is 100% of reality.

Let us now imagine that nefarious characters from the other side of the tracks start to come visit this park. They come from the bad part of town that is notorious for low-level thugs and crackheads. The park starts to get vandalized, and safety concerns arise as a few minor assaults are reported in the neighborhood, perpetrated by the outsiders. The mafia, as the owners of the park, decide to start applying discretion as to who can access it, with a strong preference given to those who live in the neighborhood. Many in the neighborhood support this action the mafia has taken, for obvious reasons. There are a few things that need to be pointed out regarding those supporters:

1. Condoning the specific action of restricting access to the park does not have to include support for any other action the mafia has taken, or even for the mafia itself.
2. Even if the mafia's claim of ownership is called into question from a moral standpoint, the people from across town have zero claims of ownership or right of access to the park anyway.
3. Therefore, the act of barring access to certain people is not immoral, nor is it a violation of anyone's rights in any way. It is in fact a legitimate function of property ownership, a role that the mafia has taken upon itself at this particular moment in time.

To make things more interesting, let's say that a homeless man from across the tracks is caught sleeping on one of the benches in this park when he was told to stay out. The mafia's enforcers, being the understanding guys that they are, beat him to death for the violation. Most in the neighborhood are horrified, even those who supported the park access limitations. They condemn the murder, shaming the local mafia leaders, demanding justice for the victim and tighter restrictions on the enforcers. Here are some more things that need to be pointed out:

1. Condemning the murder is not a condemnation of any other action.
2. Supporting discretionary access to a park is not an approval of any other action.
3. People that do evil things and join evil organizations are capable of performing actions that are morally neutral or good.
4. Beating a man to death for sleeping on a park bench is evil.
5. Barring people access to a park they have no claim to, that is under the control of your organization, is a morally neutral action.

For one slightly different angle on the subject, let's say the shop owner has a delivery truck. One day the mafia says the truck is being seized, and will now be a community asset for other shops and neighbors. The original owner can still use it too, but has to share it like everyone else. Shortly thereafter, the shopkeeper realizes that the mafia is just leaving the keys in the vehicle, and literally anyone and everyone takes it whenever they want, often joyriding through rough terrain, tearing the vehicle up. He complains to the mafia leaders, asking that they at least restrict vehicle access to community members, or maybe just other shopkeepers, with valid reasons to use it. After all, he still needs to use the truck to make deliveries for his business, and does not want to see it destroyed.

At this point I must ask - would anyone in their right mind morally condemn this man for making this request? Would anyone pass judgement on him for being a bigot for wanting to bar random people from across town access to this vehicle? Have anyone's rights, person or property been violated simply because they can't jump into this truck and use it whenever they feel like it?

Proponents of open borders seem to forget that much of what is called public property was not just paid for through taxation. Some of it was in fact taken through some form of eminent domain, otherwise known as straight up theft of property. To say that 'public property' is no different from wilderness is to say that the moment the government steals your land, everyone in the world suddenly has an equal claim of access to it. Morally, this is incomprehensible. Of course some random person on another continent does not have an equal claim to property that the government just forced you to give up. I don't throw the accusation of communism around during the borders debate, but this argument flirts with that line.

Let us one more time visit the subject of action. I of course believe that the existence of the state is unjustifiable, and should be abolished. But in our current reality, the state exists, and forces a monopoly on certain services such as emergency response and criminal justice. Therefore, if someone calls 911 today, I'm okay with the idea of cops responding to that call. If a murderer is discovered during that response, the cops would be fully justified in apprehending him. If the murderer is tried and convicted, the judge is morally justified in sentencing him to prison. If cops in the same police department beat a man to death for no reason, and the court system protects and exonerates the cops, nothing I just said previously changes. Of course the cop's murder was disgustingly immoral, and the system is corrupt and should be abolished. But in the mean time, it is not a compromise of principles to say that the cops were justified in apprehending the murderer, the court was justified in trying him, and the the judge was justified in sentencing him.

In the same vein, controlling access to publicly used property is a perfectly legitimate action in any society, including modern nation states. Just like condemning murderers or responding to emergency calls are morally neutral or positive actions. To be in favor of these particular actions is not an endorsement of the state, its existence, or any other actions taken by state agents. In a stateless society, regional access control to publicly used property would absolutely be in place. While the existence of nation states is not ideal, the act of maintaining discretionary access to borders is not in and of itself immoral, given the fact that those seeking access do not have a particular right of access, or claim to the property within.

And while the state itself is not legitimate, and the property it has was obtained through illegitimate means, we cannot pretend that the government doesn't exist, or that it is not functionally the owner of the property it claims at this moment in time. The ideas that truly do not exist are 'the public', 'the people', and 'public property'. Recognizing that public property is simply the property of the government is far more realistic and honest. A criminal organization is the owner. The phrase 'public property' means nothing, and was made up to make us feel better about it. We can point out the illegitimacy of the government's existence, but until we can change that, basic discretionary border controls are not necessarily a moral violation. The stewardship of property requires access control, and while nation states are not the property owners we want, controlling access to property is a legitimate function.