> private property absurd
It kinda is though.
> (why couldn’t I go on your lawn or drink the juice in front of me event if you have this so-called ‘property’ of it?).
Sort of for similar reasons you can't cross an invisible line - though the argument falls apart if you start taking juice out of my hand.
Your argument is interesting, but of course I disagree that the "moral" possessor of the property (nearly every nation on earth) is inherently moral (or even more moral than immoral).
> it survives because of its borders
The issue being that we've described some cells as "good" and some cells as "bad" based on whether they're inside, or outside, the borders, which isn't good enough. Obviously there are good humans outside the USA, and bad ones within. The borders failed to do the job. They're a bad solution.
Also, what definitions of "survive?" There were relatively "borderless" nations in the past, such as roving warbands and the like, that many would argue "survived" just fine (of course, like all nations, they ended or "died" eventually, but all nations do this).