if you had to explain to an alien what happens when you go to a store and exchange a piece of paper for a candy bar and get some paper and metal back, you'd be there for a long time and have to explain much of human history and civilization.
'which laws govern' i.e. are naturally imposed and who is 'imposing [somehow unnatural] laws and regulations', seems to be largely in the eye of the beholder.
the idea any of this happens in a state of nature seems naive.
No you wouldn't. It's screamingly obvious that barter is an inefficient system since the chance that your desires exactly coincide with my output are low. The notion of using an abstraction as a medium of exchange is ancient; the advent of paper money, credit and so on is simply the consequence of institutional awareness eclipsing physical instantiation, ie accepting the idea of a bank as a persistent and reliable entity as opposed to shaving gold coins and hoping the next recipient doesn't notice.
You seem to imagine the state of nature is one of carefree mutualism or somesuch, which is self-evidently not the case. Eusocial animals (which I consider to include humankind) are if anything more competitive than lone or pack animals.
In a governed society, one generally does not face constant attacks against one's territory, and when those attacks do happen (much less often), one has recourse to automatic assistance in defending it, with the threat represented by that automatic assistance acting as an effective deterrent to attacks.
I don't understand this libertarian appeal to nature. Surely we can do better than the drunken walk of evolution that has led to present day "nature".
Territory is very different from property. Territory is something you defend. Property is something society agrees to defend for you.
(I guess I kinda missed the context of the post a bit further up, which suggests there isn't a possessory instinct in nature, which is obviously incorrect.)
As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm increasingly drawn to the conclusion that those who argue most intensely for certain ideological positions are the least comfortable with the idea that our social structures may be biologically determined or could be subject to biological analysis.
Who's talking about "possible"? Any ignorant position is "possible".
Our property laws grew from these exact ways of thinking. Property is natural.