it's all about either agreeing (with a treaty) to what someone else claims or face war?

Not exactly. It's about understanding what those words mean. What I am describing is what we already do. We just don't realize it because our actions are hidden by a fiction laid in front of Reality (law, corporations, etc.).

What if some are not in agreement and are not interested in a treaty?

Then they aren't allowed to come into the town. It is identical to (exactly identical to) entering someone's home. If someone doesn't agree to live by your rules within your home, you don't let them into your home. I think you are making this more complicated than it is.

If I make a fishing pole from wood I took from property that someone else had laid a claim to, can I still call that mine?

You can lay claim to anything, including the property of someone else. In the case of laying claim to someone else's property, that is an act of war. You are still thinking in terms of law. I am trying to show you how "law" is used to obfuscate what is really going on.

I don't need an answer, it's just rhetorical.

Obviously answers exist. Stating it was "rhetorical" suggests your words were intended to justify a belief against my argument, but imo it suggests your misunderstanding.