agreed self ownership can't be proven, it's an axiomatic claim, and to me not even really necessary for ancapism (well, you could have exclusive use of your body without owning it, but this might be similar to selfownership in practice), though I would argue for relative self-ownership based on positive effects produced (consequentialist)

argumentation ethics I would only put a little stock in, I appreciate and agree with refutations of it

property doesn't seem like as much of a contention except for original appropriation of like land

"tolerance of alternative norms" - this made me bounce towards statism because if people are free, aren't they free to become statists? So yeah freedom is kind of "fascist" in that sense, or really any political view (socialism and communism impose their worldview on others). So it becomes kind of like what is the objective position to take (and therefore authority seemed necessary and traditional and so it seemed some kind of authority position seemed like it was probably the objective one, however I argue in ancapism there can still be the protection of authority on private property and authoritative designation of authoritiative groups in a decentralized way). this idea probably applies to a lot of your categories here

going to skip around as there is a lot

natural monopolies could exist and be state-like

"race realism" isn't really exclusively related to ancap, whether there are racial differences or not, the basic thing is though that people may end up discriminating racially and that is allowed by basic neutral libertarianism - in practice there is an incentive for people to economically cooperate anyway, beyond that we would probably see ethnic segregations to varying degrees because distinct ethnicities can't exist without separately marrying only within that ethnicity and thus forming a semi-separate culture kind of

I think the world is naturally patriarchical, so not sure what those posts are getting at. Either has been ruled by male monarchs and leaders, or in ancapism males would rise to the top in competition. not strictly related to "netural" ancapism

there would still be landlords in ancapism but competition would make prices much cheaper is the hope through competitions

with free market competition, there's probably just always war. There is war when we have states, there will be war if there is ancapism, there's just a hope of improving war with ancapism by providing more incentives to not go to war or to be able to protect one's self and community etc. (likewise with many problems that could be found with ancapism the hope is simply that this improves things not that it would be 100%)

free rider could be a problem, though with centralized govt you have the problem of diminshed incentives due to lack of competition (if there is one road building company by the govt and no competition mechanism then there is lack of innovation for instance)

tragedy of the commons might not always happen, that is conceded, just like just if the market incentive exists to fix something, doesn't mean it will be acted on. But to the contrary just because there are people that get together and want to have universal health care provided by a centralized gov't, doesn't mean it'll deliver either. Motivation is a tricky interesting thing

rectifying current property titles

not unique to ancapism, under a state property claims could be rectified from history

hierarchy seems to come about naturally, even in ancapism there can be decentralized organizations but with leaders. Flat organizations can try to compete with hierarchical ones and through experience accept hierarchical arrangements if they're found to be more beneficial (or do a thought experiment to confirm)

the post was long sorry for skipping along