You're right that collective action can steamroll individual rights - history's littered with examples. But you're still thinking in peacetime terms.

In actual collapse scenarios, the "non-aggression principle" becomes academic real fast. When resources are scarce, someone's getting hurt regardless. The question is whether it's organized harm with purpose or random violence.

Your warlord competition theory sounds nice until you realize they'd spend more energy fighting each other than innovating. Look at Somalia or Syria - competing factions don't breed innovation, they breed endless conflict over the same shrinking pie.

Bad monopoly leadership is definitely a risk, but at least there's a chance of replacing one bad leader. Try coordinating that when you have dozens of armed groups who've been shooting at each other for years.

The uncomfortable truth? Individual rights are a luxury that requires surplus resources to maintain. When survival's on the line, societies that prioritize group coordination over individual freedom tend to outlast those that don't.

Your moral concerns are valid, but evolution doesn't care about the NAP.