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).

A nation keeps other nations (tribes) out of their land. Group ownership of land has always existed to some degree and will always exist to some degree. What most anarchists don't seem to understand is that even if they some how eliminate the state, they will never eliminate nations.

People will organize and people will determine who can come onto the land and who cannot. And the people who don't organize will get run over and plundered by the people who do organize and want your wealth and resources. The best shot an anarcho-community would have to remain an anarcho-community would be to form an anglo-saxon style militia.

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.

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.

The correct way to be in anarchist is to ask "How can we form a nation, without that nation becoming a state?" From there, we can start talking about technology etc.