Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.
Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.
Will read.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.