If I gather correctly, no-particular-orderism refers to the idea that liberty cannot be centrally planned, that you have to take whatever opportunity presents itself.
Some in favor would suggest something to the effect of: “You can’t say I would rather get rid of the welfare state before opening the borders. If the opportunity appears to open the borders, you open the borders – and then use that pressure to bring down the welfare state.”
A classic in open borders debates amongst libertarians, NPO is often brought up when one speaker, who might even believe in an eventual open borders policy, uses the welfare state to justify their lack of support for the immediate allowance of the world’s duly desirous future patriots.
If, in such an anarcho-minded libertarian’s vision, the LP should advocate against the societal will (who cares about private property?) and cause economic strain in the form of increased taxation and wage stagnation, is the proposed act itself not a violation of the non-aggression principle?
The Estonians, engorged like a fat child with the joys of diversity after Stalin’s forced reoccupation campaign, found themselves in a similar scenario as our anarcho-afflicted hypothetical. As is the case in both scenarios, an ideology is forced upon an unwilling participant – with the only justification being the subjective confidence of those in favor and power.
If for aude lange sange, one might indulge in the narcissistic fantasy of forcing their culturally blind vision upon those too “ignorant” or “racist” to accept willingly, that is actually a problem. Small groups can exist, where drooling members take turns counting the potential GDP created from bringing the world’s English illiterate into the joys of American manual labor. But, for the good of the Libertarian Party as a whole, such fantasies are best reserved for behind some capital A adorned yellow door, found in a wet back alley.