This assertion has far-reaching implications in the realm of statecraft. Instead, what would be necessary for individuals to remain free, and to have their rights fully recognized and protected, would be something like Nozick's idea of voluntary protective associations, under which individuals would belong to associations voluntarily and would form contracts with each other to mutually enforce each other's rights. Thus, the conclusion of this essay is that negative rights, the inalienable rights of every man and woman, could only be maintained in the absence of anything that could be termed a state. The question this leads to is one of practicality. Unfortunately, it is unlikely at this point in human history.
Humans are still too violent, and the ways of statism still too firmly entrenched in society.
Even the Founding Fathers' noble experiment was unable to create a nation unsusceptible to government oppression. While people claim to value their freedom, and often speak of it in stirring terms, in the end, it seems likely that they are willing to give up a certain degree of freedom for security. They are probably giving up more freedom than they realize, as there is precious little distance between the most limited and the most tyrannical state.