So much great content, @dwinblood! I'm confused as to why more of your posts haven't skyrocketed to trending stardom.

I think you've covered much of the basic discussions I see in the various anarcho-capitalist vs. anarcho-communist debate groups I've spent way too much time in on Facebook. Often it comes down to stuff like this:

commies:
You can't justify land ownership, so private property has no basis.
Someone is always exploited when the worker don't own the means of production.
All good capitalists use the state and are cronies by definition. The haves get more while the have nots go hungry.
Anarcho-capitalism has never worked anywhere on a large scale.
There is no such thing as a free market. Never has been. It's a myth.

cappies:
All attempts at communal ownership break down without market forces to determine value.
The market via voluntary exchange is the best mechanism for allowing anyone to improve their standard of living without coercion.
Anarcho-communism has never worked anywhere on a large scale.
There is no such thing communism without government rule. Never has been. It's a myth.

Or something along those lines. As much as I've become a die-hard anarcho-capitalist over the past few years, I do think the commies have some valid points, specifically with regards to other mechanisms we could use to organize society such as a gift economy or a sharing economy. The word "economize" implies savings and conservation, but much of the crony-capitalist economy is about planned obsoleteness, environmental destruction for profit, immoral actions rewarded by profit, etc, etc. We cappies try to hand-wave it away by describing a market free of cronyism, but the rebuttals argue no such thing exists.

Mostly, I'm trying to improve human well-being while also keeping the species alive. I think both sides have positions which are worth talking about, but, unfortunately, most of the discussions I've engaged in haven't been very fruitful intellectually.