Starting with a few basic opinions:

• “Anarchism” - I recognize “authority” or “state-authority,” as a highly destructive myth – and oppose “the state” in it’s various forms.
• ”Property” - I am strongly opposed to theft and other forms of parasitism (or, inversely, I support balanced property norms).

Naturally, property plus anarchism equals.... “Anarcho Capitalism?” If that’s all Anarcho-Capitalism meant, perhaps I would 'be' an Anarcho-Capitalist.

However taking a deeper look at /r/Anarcho_Capitalism, or the content on Mises.org, there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes. Specifically, the presumptions, justifications, and appeals by which AnCaps (attempt to) win arguments and define the Libertarian/AnCap position. The subject of these appeals are the “authorities” (or dogma). While there is some diversity, a few examples I regularly see include appeals to classic AnCaps, modern AnCaps,“Austro-Libertarian,” (“true”) property, or coercion, aggression, definitional appeals, the N.A.P., homesteading, or Argumentation Ethics.

The reason I say, “I’m not an AnCap” is because none of those appeals or ‘authorities’ have any meaning to me. The N.A.P. is as authoritative as Karl Marx, Political Correctness, or Constitution. Sure, I generally like the N.A.P. and some of the other things listed, however one cannot “win an argument” and/or defined my values, on the basis of an appeal to the NAP or any other ‘authority’ listed.

At heart, I still recognize state authority as a myth, and prefer property norms … but at the end of the day, I don’t care about the N.A.P. or any other AnCap ‘authority’ or argument. What I do care about, however, are the actual humans (or beings). There is no argument, logic, or authority that will convince me it’s “ok” to harm, abuse, or otherwise parasitically leach off of innocent persons.