[Salohcin]

That's why I wrote "The North American continent was effectively open for homesteading until the late 19th century."
So while the exact ethical status of European settlement is far from unambiguous, the presence of natives did little to deter European homesteading activity.

But that is exactly what I was saying. The homesteading rights of one group (native americans) was declared null by another group (european settlers) because the europeans had access to more force of arms.

On the contrary. You cannot have wars without government, and I am talking about processes of conflict resolution that work without governments.

You can definitely have battles betwen larged armed groups that are non-governmental. Whether you can them wars is largely academic to those doing the dying.

Imagine for a moment that a race of superior aliens lands on Earth and issues a decree whereby all governments everywhere must be immediately disbanded. Assume, for the sake of argument, that their decree is made so persuasively that nobody on Earth dare violate it. Further, assume that nothing otherwise changes.

Honestly I have trouble imagining this. Not it the way you would imagine. Government isn't a strict top level only thing federal or state thing. Workplaces are effectively governances in their own right, they just have more limit powers of enforcement. Are they going to stop people from telling other people what to do??? Honestly your hyperthetical doesn't make sense. For example:

So people will start to organize defences against rioters with their immediate neighbours. But now some out-of-work police officers may offer their protection services. Society will quickly develop other structures, organizations, private for- and not-for-profit associations, common rules of conduct, etc. that will quickly drive down any lawlessness.

So are these aliens going to come down on these little mini governances that people set up to protect themselves. You delude yourself that they are anything otherwise.

Ultimately, it is easy to show, an anarchic society can handle petty criminality much more effectively than a government-ruled one. The two main factors are (1) crime prevention will become competitive, and competition always beats a monopoly

Competive law enforcement would definitely generate more profitable law enforcement.

(2) private land-ownership makes it possible to selectively exclude unwanted characters in ways not possible in public areas today.

So what gives you the right to set laws on land you have claimed. What are you, some sort of government?

[Eran]

But that is exactly what I was saying. The homesteading rights of one group (native americans) was declared null by another group (european settlers) because the europeans had access to more force of arms.

Agreed. And that was wrong, as was slavery and many other crimes by European against non-Europeans.

However, that wrong is not inherent in the concept of homesteading. Rather, it is a historic example of abuse of that concept.

You can definitely have battles betwen larged armed groups that are non-governmental. Whether you can them wars is largely academic to those doing the dying.

In practice, you cannot have sustained wars without governments because of their cost. Only government, by externalizing the cost of war, is likely to create wars. Private entities lacking the ability to externalize those costs. They are thus much less likely to engage in prolonged "total" wars.

Government isn't a strict top level only thing federal or state thing. Workplaces are effectively governances in their own right, they just have more limit powers of enforcement. Are they going to stop people from telling other people what to do??? Honestly your hyperthetical doesn't make sense.

I do not object to any authority or hierarchy. Only the governmental one. There is no confusion between governments and, say, workplaces. In the former, an organization assumes the legitimate right to impose its will on anybody living in a large geographic area, without that organization justly owning the area. In the latter case, the organization restricts its authority to workplace activities or, at the most, to limitations voluntarily accepted by workers as part of their employment terms.

So are these aliens going to come down on these little mini governances that people set up to protect themselves.

No. I was assuming Rothbardian aliens who prohibit the initiation of force, but not the use of defensive or retaliatory force.

So what gives you the right to set laws on land you have claimed. What are you, some sort of government?

No. I am the just owner of the land. In theory, I either homesteaded the land, or purchased it from somebody who did. Any person with better claim to the land is welcome to challenge my title in court.

None of those can be said about government.