>>15333
You'll never agree, because ancaps support private property and left-anarchists only allow occupancy and use rights.
While I support private property, I also think the problem with ancaps is that they would accept a single company or a small elite ruling everything if it came about in accordance with the NAP, actually scrap that, they'd accept existing oligopolies that didn't come about in accordance with the NAP, and respect the property of private institutions that only have their property because of the state.
I, on the other hand oppose monopoly and oligopoly wholesale, so if I would seek to get an association of people together to take these organizations down and split them up.
If a small group own everything, the NAP gives them the right to use force because it's their property. That's just the same as the state, only they got there voluntarily. Ancaps think the same outcome is okay so long as the path to get there is different, but I don't. Nobody should be allowed to have that much power.
Now, it can be said that these oligopolies would be beaten out by market forces, but Ancaps just take this on faith and don't have a contingency plan.
That's why if I can accept any form of anarchy, it must be anarcho-distributism, and not ancap, or libsoc/ancom. It's maybe the centrist position, or a third position.