Really interesting!!

The NAP is a silly philosophical abstraction when it's applied to land. Historically, even in the absence of a state, people of similar biology (i.e. race) voluntarily organize to unofficially form a nation (a nation is not a state), and a nation claims ownership of land. (Yes, nations are formed at a primitive level, although America has strived to create a nation based on principles following the 1965 immigration act, but I digress).

Ya, so it's like the state is doing what's naturally attached to the idea of claiming land. If they monopolize something, you want them to at least follow through and vaguely provide the services; you don't watch them monopolize the roads and then draw the line somewhere like "don't pour the cement, that would be an initiation of aggression"

The best shot an anarcho-community would have to remain an anarcho-community would be to form an anglo-saxon style militia.

I mean, I think it eventually evolves to where the world in general is less and less likely to be violent. Like without statism breeding creatures of war (public schooling, bad parenting, etc). And there's less scarcity when that happens too, so less practical need to steal. And there wouldn't be a tax base to get control of.. you'd get the resources but not their labor ongoingly. So I think the equation flips to where there isn't much incentive to conquer you, but ya, for a long time anyways you'd want some sort of defense.

Defense is cheaper than offense too. Without statism I feel like the idea of being conquered goes away really fast.

The ancappers are little too holier-than-thou with their philosophical abstractions, and you don't hear very many pragmatic solutions in anticipation to real problems that their community would face.

Ya, I do subscribe to NAP and consider that kind of like the building block of all that's good in the world lol.. so watch yo mouth! Lol jk. I'm surprised how toxic they can be when there's a disagreement like this topic.

The typical thing is that you're "not really an anarchist" if you disagree on this. Which is funny because I'm equally sure that they're wrong and that I'm actually the one consistently extending the NAP and could make the same claim about them, but I wasn't looking to kick them out or something.

I guess it's like their version of the way a liberal would accuse you of being racist, like ad hom and not useful and lowkey what they're actually guilty of. Like they want to argue why it's absurd of you to think this rather than take the points fairly and head on.

When an anarchists refuses to admit that they will have to still be a part of some kind of nation, it just becomes magical thinking.

Right, if the land was claimed in a decentralized way, there would be screening. It wouldn't be that everyone can necessarily come live there.

Living on land where there's no screening isn't the logical extension of freedom and NAP, nor is it what anyone should want or what would happen.

I had never heard this "nations" concept before, but have basically thought the same thing, that land would be collectively owned in a voluntary world. You form communities, and internally you casually keep track of it, like everyone knows the tree house is your space.

And even if we'd individually own patches of land, still, you then get to decide who can come.