> in order to be able to freely choose which group to join, no group must be allowed to reject me.

That's not how free association works. Both the individual and the group, each according to their own criteria, determine if they want to associate with one another.

The same point applies to many of your other arguments.

I don't really think it would increase the number of people who are left behind. There are many left behind people all over the world who on paper have states they belong to, but which the rules of those states leave them cut out of any real participation. If they could participate in whatever groups they currently belong to, with full sovereignty rather than under a state attempting to destroy these groups and subsume them, I think those people would be better off. And, for those few that are unwanted by anyone, much fewer than there are now in a state dominated environment, they can always choose to associate with one another.

There will be rules based on location no matter what you do. You don't need a state for that. People live in places, and they have customs and etiquette and rules of decorum. You probably won't be able to walk around naked in Kabul no matter whether there's a state or not.

There will be rules based on location no matter what you do. You don't need a state for that. People live in places, and they have customs and etiquette and rules of decorum. You probably won't be able to walk around naked in Kabul no matter whether there's a state or not.

the state is needed to protect this person from undue punishment and give them a fair trial. the same goes for benign things like traffic violations or for murder. the moment where a rule violation crosses multiple groups you get an issue with jurisdiction. the only way to resolve that is by having an entity governing rules for the locality. otherwise justice can't be enforced.

now again, we don't need the nation states from today to do that. a global system would be better, but we still need local enforcement and local influence over what the rules are. there is simply no way around that if we want to protect all individuals in a location.

in general when it comes to enforcement of rules and punishment, the only groups that will survive will be faith based ones, because for any other group people will simply leave if they feel they are not being treated fairly. we can already see that with the controversies around some code of conduct violations. only the people who have a big stake in the group or depend on the group will accept any punishment. others will just give up and find another group.

the only way to avoid that is to have justice be handled by an independent institution. it can't come from the group itself, or we make it difficult to switch groups.

That's not how free association works. Both the individual and the group, each according to their own criteria, determine if they want to associate with one another.

i know that. my point is that absolute free association is not a good idea because it will create a group of outcasts that noone wants to associate with. but that is something that we must not allow to happen.

And, for those few that are unwanted by anyone, much fewer than there are now in a state dominated environment, they can always choose to associate with one another.

no they can't. similar to the quote "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" those outcasts will all be different and many won't want to associate with each other.

i am actually experiencing this frequently as an expat. although being welcomed, i am often treated as an outsider, and i have no interest to associate with other expats either. while there still exists groups that i can associate with, i am sure there are people that noone wants to associate with, and we can't allow to let these people be left behind.