O.k., I understand that there is less personal risk doing things the civil way, i.e, getting a job, trading, selling your labour/services, etc.. but I'm talking about international relations and am also assuming that not all societies in the effective geographical area are free. ( I suppose that if there was real freedom, there would be no nations)
In my hypothetical situation of the plains Indian tribes, those who are members of the aggresive war-like societies, because they are tribal and brainwashed with superstition, will raid without question, wil be able to be moved to violence more easily than a free society. And therefore, just like all raiders in the past, like the Huns or the Mongols, just annihilate anyone in their path.
I mean, in order to defend yourself against this kind of force, you have to be able to be quickly mobilized, you have to have a routine down, a plan of action, which would mean that there would have to be some kind of military protocol. All this pre-supposes military training or a military structure. And of course, this pre-supposes nationalism.
In a free society, there are no "others." There is no "us and them." There are just voluntary transactions between individuals. It just seems to me, that this mentality (volunteerism and NAP), although ideal, would only flourish if all societies became spontaniously free at the same time, not just one among many. Again, it seems that the viscious brain-washed, superstitios and power hungry non-free societies would run over the more passive ones.