Modern states suspend the rights of individuals to lifer or liberty as a punishment for breaking a rule. Rules like "don't rape people".

They also do it for rules like "wrong skin color," "wrong country of origin," "wrong sexuality or gender identity," "born into poverty and stole food," "suffering from drug addiction," or even "possessed a completely harmless drug like weed." And the punishment is often the total depravation of rights and forced labor tantamount to slavery.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike from stealing loaves of bread."

At least in theory, you can move to another nation or campaign for better treatment in essentially all modern states, exempting a small group of pariah states that still mostly don't rape people as punishment.

This wasn't a good argument in feudal society when peasants could leave and find another Lord or live on their own, and it's not a good argument now. Choice is pointless when all your choices share the same constraints.

Not a single person I've seen has so much as suggested any mechanism whatsoever that would keep "self organizing collectives" from becoming fetit pools of bigotry and violence. We know that will happen because such groups arise in every nation already, but their impact is curbed specifically by the power of the state.

What mechanism prevents states from becoming fetid pools of bigotry and violence, and how has it been working so far? The power of the state does not curb this behavior, it curbs its rivals while engaging in that very behavior themselves by maintaining a monopoly on violence.

"Get rid of the government and we'll all do the right thing" is libertarian bullshit to cover their glee at taking things away from others. If you aren't a pro-rape libertarian, figure out how your proposed system would protect the vulnerable at least as well as modern states do.

Anarchy is not the lack of government, it's horizontal governance. Hierarchy is not necessary for community policing or restorative justice. I'm not an American Libertarian which is an irrational ideology, as it wants capitalism without the state, which is impossible because capitalism is enforced by the state. Without the state protecting private property there can be no capitalism.

Lemme explain the sensibility even when we use 1.a.1. I said the idea of a nation itself should cease to exist.

An analog would be religion. If someone asked me, "what's your religion?". I would say, "I'm non religious". I wouldn't reply by saying, "my religion is atheism".

Similarly, if someone asked me what nation I belonged to, I would say something along the lines of "technically, I'm under the jurisdiction of XYZ state, but I do not identify as a member of any nation."

I'm hoping that this becomes the majority viewpoint. That's how my answer is sensible even with 1.a.1.

And as for "will inevitably rise within any sovereign state which will persist for a long enough time", it's not true necessarily. Example being myself and so many other people (anarchists, lib socialists, even right wing libertarians). Yes, it has been true throughout history (descriptive), but I'm hoping it isn't going forward (normative).