"First off there's two different concepts: society and technology that you seem to use in this context interchangeably, and it's not clear how they relate."

Society in this regard is mostly about how people incentivize each other through ostracisation, expectations, traditions, love....basically things that are non contractual and rule based, but still influence decisions and profitability. For example a society that very largely disapproves of outright slavery would render organizations that utilize slavery less profitable. Another thing society might strongly encourage is charitable donations, or sharing or transparency...all kinds of things provide financial incentives by just being expected generally by a community. Additionally societies can be small communities or large nations, and this also influences economic activity.

Likewise technology influences the economics of violence and can in some cases render types of fraud or violence obsolete. Nuclear bombs for example had an influence on the predictability and overall cost of war, and changed international relations and economics, but the most prevalent example of technology rendering fraud, corruption, and violence obsolete are decentralized autonomous organizations running on ethereum. The technology in question here is the recent invention of the blockchain combined with decentralized cloud computation that allows a software to exist that no one has the power to edit or delete, and everyone can at any point pay to have that software run. Ultimately this allows for the creation of sovereign software. Here are some relevant excerpts from the paper I am writing:

(Abstract) - Blockchain based cloud computation has for the first time enabled software to plausibly be more trustworthy and reliable at handling possession of assets than major institutions are capable of. Software is now able to possess its own assets, enter into agreements, and execute code that no human has the power to erase or prevent. If software can combine the capabilities of self ownership, property rights, and predictable behavior with a system of competitive commerce facilitating incentive mechanisms; it can achieve sovereignty.

(Individual Incentives) - Individual incentive compatibility is achieved when on average it is not profitable for any actor on the system to behave fraudulently in the absence of contact with other actors and third party mechanisms. Individual incentive compatibility is achieved through mechanisms like escrow, bonds, bets, identity, and reputation scores. Individual incentives mechanisms should be designed to as cheaply as possible be incentive compatible.

(External Security Mechanisms) - Fake/duplicate content and users are regulated through mechanisms such as fees, reputation, and peak-load pricing mechanisms. Bribes and corruption are prevented by decentralization of power, and by always assuming for the purpose of obtaining incentive compatibility that assets can always be traded and actors are able to communicate and agree to unsanctioned deals. Security weaknesses in the software can be prevented by security audits, asset compartmentalization, asset time locking, simplifying code, and access restrictions. Violence, propaganda, and public relations issues can be prevented by decentralization and maintaining a positive public perception of system ethics.

(Coordinated Violent Shutdown) - Another external threat is a coordinated violent attempt to stop the system from functioning. There are are 3 requirements to making violent shutdowns implausible: no servers, no buildings, and no centralization. The cost of coordinating a violent attack on the physical location of every computer critical to the system should be estimated as it represents a possible attack strategy for adversaries. No buildings refers to avoiding a static place of conducting business that could be targeted for attack. The cost of disrupting commerce taking place at physical locations should also be estimated as a cost barrier to attack the system. No centralization refers to the centralization of power. Also consider the cost of compromising the computers of, or finding and coordinating attack on the physical location of enough actors on the system to harm the system enough to lose the ability to compete.

(Violent Incentives) - Any potential liability to the system secured by threat of violence should be avoided. Any attempt at a DAO obtaining government granted rights is a liability, this includes patents, physical property ownership, taxes, ability to sue or be sued, and signing government enforced contracts. There should be no incentives present in a DAO where violence is a critical incentive mechanism. This is because violence is expensive, has unreliable results, and requires sharing knowledge of physical location. Seek to eliminate the incentives for violence and fraud rather than avenge victims. If an activity is profitable enough to cover costs, that activity is inevitable, and this includes harming others for gain. If there is any scheme imaginable that would profitably harm others on your system, it will be done to the maximum extent possible. Reliance on justice, government, or violence will be not be sustainable.

Power should be measured by power to harm, and any power that has to be given to humans should be counterbalanced by the ability to lose greater power. The system must at all times be capable of executing a transfer function that inflicts negative utility upon an actor in an amount that is at least as much as their incentive for corruption. This agent liability is typically avoided through deposits, escrow, or reputation systems.

" leaps of logic" - Yes this is more of a prediction of how voluntary societies in the future will operate than it is evidence based on facts of how the world currently exists.

"If not please provide examples/scenarios about said society or technology that will stop the incentive of defending my property by killing the invader"

I agree with Stefan Molyneux that the main industry that will enter the space of handling violators of the NAP will be insurance companies. If someone steals your car, you are going to get the money back for the car anyway because of insurance, and this is opposed by the danger of entering into a fight to the death with a thief even if you have an advantage. Insurance companies will have their own incentives to stop violence, especially serial offenders because these offenders cost them money. Once government stops subsidizing the revenge industry, security will largely switch to being an investment in prevention rather than revenge. Americans already lose around 10% of their income to security guards known as police and military, that is enough money for every few apartments to have an armed guard standing outside..and thats just the shitty innovative starting point for a voluntarist society. As with anything the government has monopolized for 1000s of years, there are 1000s of years of untapped innovation in the field of reducing the harm of violence and fraud. "Murder anyone who aggresses" is the most archaic and inefficient means of security. This is more about my prediction that I have seen the beginning of an explosion of innovation in the field of countering violence and fraud and I find it essentially a given that many many more ways to creatively reduce the harm of violence that no one can imagine currently, and will be impressively effective at accomplishing its goals compared to what even voluntarists would expect. Furthermore there will also be an evolution when the even the way culture pressures people to treat each other becomes highly competitive.

The general purpose of this article is to imagine us say decades after voluntarism is embraced worldwide, and people look back to the times where everyone thought voluntarism alone would solve a lot of problems, but what they eventually learned is that voluntarism is just the beginning, and this capitalist violence backed agreement system that especially an-caps imagine will occur, will in fact be inefficient and will fail to compete in a voluntarist society. Culture, societal norms, traditions and expectations, community, love, respect.... these traits will become much more influential in a voluntarist society because communities that can tap into the free incentives provided by love will be able to outperform against cultures that rely purely on violent agreement enforcement to incentivize behavior.