>>535
I like to describe Anarcho-Capitalism as political and economic Atheism, in that ultimately it consists only in the rejection of the ideas of political authority and economic intervention. Ultimately you can get to bare-bones Anarcho-Capitalism through asking inconvenient questions (and this is where Larken Rose shines).
>Why should anyone, or any group of persons, have the right to force anyone else to obey them?
>Why do we think that individuals trading freely is somehow dangerous?
>Why should we trust people with power but not with freedom?
>What benefit can the government provide that the free market can't?
>What is government?
And so on.
Of course, inquiring minds and argumentative opponents want something to fill the void. What about "public goods"? What about law? What about morality? What about mean evil capitalists? These concerns are dismissed by a thorough understanding of Economics (AnCaps generally support the Austrian school, on account of being purely deductive/consistent and less open to interpretation), supported by a sober examination of the commonly-believed myths about these industries. You can learn a lot about these from Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt (and his book Economics in One Lesson), Milton Friedman (an excellent speaker and debunker) and some others I can't remember off the top of my head.
If you want to understand AnCap ethics, the two big names I can recommend are Stefan Molyneux (I know; he catches a lot of shit but he's valuable to the philosophy. Just check out the book Universally Preferable Behaviour and judge for yourself) and Hans Herman Hoppe, whose Argumentation Ethics mesh nicely with Austrian Economics and Praxeology.