My argument does not rely on my authority, it relies on the application of reason to political emotionalism. As the one making the positive claim that national borders are somehow an extension of property rights and ownership boundaries, you are the one who bears the burden of proof. You used a lot of words to convey little meaning.

1. Governments do not represent anyone outside the political class despite their propaganda about democracy and representation. What is the source of government's authority to dictate who may travel where and trade what? Remember, they don't represent us, so that argument is shot down. None of us have delegated any authority to them. Even if democracy worked as advertised, and we did have a representative republic, none of us can delegate any authority we do not have in the first place anyway. As noted in the meme above, I have no authority over my next door neighbor's property, so how can I delegate such authority to the government? That is usurpation.

2. Crime is indeed a problem, but governments are in fact the biggest and most violent criminal enterprises known to mankind. They do not protect us from being violated any more than a mafia tries to keep out competition in their racketeering district.

3. National borders exist only to define the territorial monopolies in violence held by governments. They do not represent society, communities, or any other organic social structure. Near where I live, there is a town that straddles a state border. On one side of the street, you can legally conceal a pistol without any license or permit. On the other side of the street, you can legally roll and smoke a marijuana cigarette. Crossing the street magically turns either person into a "criminal" by legislative fiat. This is absurd. National borders are just an extension of this absurdity.

4. Appealing to the status quo as "that's just the way it is" is a cop out. The argument that we need an educated populace before freedom can be permitted is not an argument with any merit, either.