>legislation
I think the sticking point for the two of us is that you see legislation as something that cannot be divorced from capital. While that is the current tendency I do not see a reason why this should be the case in future, further, it certainly wasn't the case in the past. Small scale groups produce laws. Legislation, in the right circumstances, is the codification of socially learned behaviour. You might ask why it needs to be codified. To me it seems apparent that laws will exist one way or the other, for example your property laws. What happens if when the enforcement of social law disrupts the codified legislation? If the ladder were to fall under one monkey's private land and he could and would climb it as he likes?
There is nothing inherently wrong with social policy. The reason diversity hiring and the like get in is twofold. First, that societies are no longer homogenous, the lessons of one citizen are the behaviours of the other. Modern PC bullshit believes a marriage of this mutual exclusive principles is not just possible but idea, we know this to be false.
Second, that societies have grown too large and networked. There is too much conflicting information and propaganda for such a highly contextual system right now. In smaller societies both the consequence and the lesson are social transferred. If the collective is too large to have experienced the event, then it is no wonder that they will not readily understand why things have become the way they are.

>but guess what I have the gun
That is the case with anything. What is the difference between an individual possessing the gone and maintaining ownership through his own power, an individual heading a group that has man guns and through them maintaining his property, and an individual, through membership of a group with guns enforcing his ownership? They are all an individual protecting property though a show or act of force. These is no difference in reality between the merit that allowed him to purchase the gun, the merit that had him dominate in a group with guns or the merit of being valuable enough to his own group (society) with guns. They are all acts of competence. You seem to irrationally favour the individual agency and while I also enjoy the romanticism I cannot see how one of these is more or less worthy of merit than the other.
>in an ancap world
Where you’re dominated by people who use finance to create a feudal system? Where those who are intelligent and rational in terms of self service would risk aggression against you for gain? From my understanding of the ancap nonsense the NAP is between two parties as no state exists to enforce collective application. My aggression towards you could not be considered aggression towards someone else, for example. Ancap is a system that immediately creates power vacuums that would and could be abused by the strong, the smart and the cunning. An individual cannot exist in a vacuum, even if they induce one themselves. Another state would just roll you over.
>society enforce the claim
For better or worse, given that we both agree that enforcement usually means FORCE, that is what legislation is. Were it to act counter to that communal knowledge and you didn’t have the means to stop me you would have to rely on whatever communal effort you could muster. The most potent communal example of course being, the state.

>but should individuals have incentive to wage war on their own societies
Yes. If you believe that elimination of weak societies is the way, then there is no other answer but yes. If that society cannot police itself, or doesn’t not serve its people properly then it doesn’t deserve to exist. Naturally, policing itself is a measure of removing incentive and even penalising rebellious action but ultimately that just leads the measure of a society to how long it can maintain totalitarian control.
Certain animals actually contract cancer at higher rates than others. Should their cancer be removed or should it consume them until either it stops being a globalised issue genetically or they’re extinct?
Dissidence and the maintenance of order are just as central to growth as innovation and competition. Noble ideas have no place in the appraisal of such things. Being loyal and noble (as you appear to be given what you’re saying) is a valuable trait individually and communally but that is all it is, another commodity/factor on with which society grows. As a third party you have to see it as such. Similarly, as a member of a weaker nation I would preach peace and mercy as it is in my interests to do so, so too might a citizen of a strong nation preach war. Neither is inherently weak or strong in principle. Both are valid. Whichever belief wins out socially and allows that individual and society to progress is the strongest and worthy of merit. In this sense, diversity hiring isn’t societal decay but a very clever and effective power play.

>teleology of life is to become rational
I disagree emphatically. You’re talking about an impossibility. There can be no rationality without warrants informing a position and giving implicit goals. Rationality is the art of knowing what you want and deciding how to get it, nothing more. It’s a practice in efficiency, and while becoming more efficient is the logical conclusion of a growing intellectual group we cannot achieve a state of rationality that is greater or lesser than our current state. We are irrational and as long as the definition of ‘life’ for organisms remains the same I do not think we can change that. Anything that is perfectly rational would immediately cease to function as there is no rational reason to function in the first place.