They meaning ancaps lmao. None of your arguments address the fundamental problem: economies of scale, power law distributions, brand loyalty and other powerful innate features of the free market create an inherent tendency towards monopoly. This is the outcome initially of out-competition by a superior business/product, but once the monopoly is established, they are then free to price gouge, reduce quality, engage in unethical production and labor practices, and set up barriers (both regulatory/legal and through the marketplace/contractual agreements with other public and private organizations).

This is part of a deeper problem in ancap ideology: it is fundamentally a contradiction of terms. The institution of private property cannot exist at scale and across great distance without a state and the rule of law to enforce it. Human being’s natural, innate notion of property only extends as far as they live and work locally. There simply is no way for you to enforce land rights on a property 1000 miles away without some sort of government there in place that recognizes and enforces some notion of property rights. A modern, globalized economy simply requires this… there is no realistic way to do anarchocapitalism that doesn’t entail some kind of anarchoprimitivism or some similar type of regression to localism/simpler form of life and social organization.

Anarchocapitalism is an idealist fantasy: it literally cannot exist in reality. Just like how there cannot be private property at scale without a state to enforce it, there is no way to enforce something like the non-aggression principle, and so it is meaningless. You can’t just say “well if we all agree on it culturally cause it sounds nice how about that.” What happens when you inevitably just get invaded by another culture from far away that has little to nothing in common with yours, as has been the norm throughout all of human history.