I'm trying to clarify your position, not mine. No, I can't do that without asking questions.
What I identify with isn't the point. (I identify as neither, BTW.)
Little Green Men, in case you were unclear on what I meant there: So Russia sent a bunch of Russian military, without insignias on, into Ukraine, where they became a "secessionist" movement. But what they really were was a stealth invasion.
So, if you have no borders, how do you stop that? How do you stop armed thugs from somewhere hostile to you from coming over the border, as individuals, and destroying your country?
Or do you oppose the idea of countries? And if you do, then how do you get from where we are currently (as a world of countries, some with hostilities to other countries) to where you would like us to be?
If you want my position, I guess it's that your statement "I am opposed to borders on a fundamental, ideological level. They are an expression of state violence prohibiting natural freedom of movement and trade" may be fine in theory, but is fundamentally unworkable in the real world. I see some specific problems, reasons why I think it can't work. I'm trying to see if you have answers.
No, I am trying to clarify your position and have already given mine. If you were actually unclear, how did you expect a rebuttal to be taken seriously? Pick one, concede the other and we can go from there.
So, I'll ask directly. Are you a paleo-libertarian?
Can you express your viewpoint without questions or using my viewpoint for reference? Does your world view vanish if I am not around?
Also, do you identify as a "Libertarian" or "paleo-libertarian"? I really think the difference should be more evident in conversations like this.