For better or worse, I understand anarcho-capitalism to be the abolition of the political order in favor of an economic order. The key to survival in either order is fending for oneself. In the political order this means literal self-defense, while in the economic order it is the less explicit “holding one’s own” in negotiation and the like. I see more similarities than differences here. In the political order effectiveness at combat is a prerequisite for dignity, while in the economic order is the triad of recession-proof skills (in terms of the want ads, etc.): sales, collections and security. In either order, the meek inherit the dust. My own subjective sense of freedom is that the ultimate freedom is the freedom to let one’s guard down. If the abolition of politics, in itself, is a step in the direction of freedom (and I believe it can be), then the abolition of economics is a step further in the same direction. It’s certainly ironic that my assertion that meaningful economic freedom is freedom from economics is always attacked most fiercely by the proselytizers of the right wing notion called negative liberties, which is otherwise a generalization of the idea of “freedom from.”
Against market and state!
In defense of anagorism 
neither politics nor economics can be abolished by law or decree. This post betrays an apparent lack of understanding of political theory.
Negative Liberty pertains to restraints on claims that can be imposed by law or decree. Political Freedom does not mean “freedom from politics;” likewise regarding “Economic Freedom.”
Freedom from Economics would pertain to a condition of no scarcity; “negative liberty” is a nonsensical concept in a condition of no-scarcity; indeed, government itself is nonsensical in a condition of no-scarcity.
While it’s true that artificial or contrived scarcity can be a conseqeunce of government, don’t pretend that government nonetheless somehow is a means to non-scarcity. This is the very definition of utopianism.
Your concept of society is everyone sharing your exact moral foundations. A million moral replicates of yourself. But that’s not a society: that’s your imagination. I’m sure you will respond by calling me a “right-winger” and moral defect. But you would only be making my point: name calling is not a means of dispute resolution.
Perhaps “obsolescence” or “obviation” would have been a better choice than “abolition.” I’m simply saying that if obviation of tooth and claw is an evolutionary step, it would make sense to view obviation of grub and hustle as a further evolutionary step.
Perhaps that is the problem with ancapism, it offers no freedom from politics. I would never suggest government as a means to non-scarcity, although I don’t equate utopianism with government, and I don’t use utopianism as a pejorative. I do regard utopian goals (including post-scarcity) as asymptotic goals. That is my one concession to Reality.
I’m not sure how you conclude that I envision a society of moral replicates. Is it something that goes hand-in-hand with post-scarcity, or with utopia? People often accuse me of utopianism, but I’d gladly settle for a world in which nice guys and gals finish second last.
I don’t know whether I would call you a right winger, but you seem to have at least a few right wing tendencies, such as using terms like “collective” and “utopia” as pejoratives. Together with the anticorporatist stuff, it probably averages out to middle of the road, which is certainly no moral defect.
Oh, and appeals to public choice theory certainly move the needle more than a little to the right.
Oh, wait, it appears you might be attacking public choice theory. Scratch the above.
Pingback: We have an SNR problem, not a bandwidth problem | In defense of anagorism