I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. For me, there is nothing that could make the case that it's morally wrong because the premises are entirely moral and correct

I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. For me, there is nothing that could make the case that it's morally wrong because the premises are entirely moral and correct in my world-view. It basically starts with very few solid premises that (I think) most people would agree on, and builds an entire moral framework of rules on-top of those to define how human interaction should go. Have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Non-aggression_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Non-aggress... The Non-Aggression Principle(NAP) is what it all boils down to. I would argue that a lot of the laws we have are just re-iterations or complex versions of the NAP. This does mean some things "slip through" that we're used to as being laws/rules in our society, but I think that in the such a society, we would organize and solve them to a satisfactory degree using means that don't violate the basic rules as set down. There are huge volumes of people trying to solve them without violating the NAP and I think it's possible if we built a society slowly over time on such a framework that it would work. Pragmatically, however, I know we won't be able to achieve it in the near future (or ever) without a "reset" or a "fresh start" that allows the idea to practice, be fleshed out, and hopefully flourish. It can't just be "slapped onto" our current society and hope things work out, that'll result in chaos and put us in apocalypse territory. This is also why I'm very disappointed with all the "outer-space" related laws and treaties that are basically disallowing the possibility for new societies to form without the old ways of doing things.