as i’ve asserted and you resist in normative grounds (fine) but you cannot resist on practical grounds, the ability in practice to have rights derives from states. states enforce rights, or else only might makes right. 1/

the existence of and desirability of states, however, does not depend on any particular bundle of rights that states choose to enforce. 2/

liberal states protecting a broad range of expressive and associational rights are desirable in my view, but the case for states is not only for so advanced and delicate a flower. 3/

a right to “free association” may or may not be protected, and the meaning of such a right may or may not extend to choosing where and with whom to live (can ethnic enclaves emerge?), choosing in what language our children are educated, etc. 4/

again, imposing a priori as “universal rights” particular answers to these questions constrains the sphere of action for state integration and maintenance in ways that render extermination or expulsion more likely than if states had greater internal scope to work towards peaceful integration. /fin