Yikes dawg how does one communicate with someone whose ideological landscape is full of missing definitions and contradictory definitions?

That’s not what I’ve said. I’ve said that your definitions are subjective to your own ideology. Thus they require clarification when used.

There’s a lot to untangle here and I’m not willing or able to do that for you. I can only suggest reading more anarchist sources. I typically share this one as a decent conceptual intro https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-gelderloos-anarchy-works although I don’t agree with everything it says.

I’ve read Kropotkin. For everything good, against everything bad, no specifics, no mechanisms, and how animals don’t hurt each other for power (in fact they do).

I’m finding it difficult to be talking to an “anarcho-capitalist” who doesn’t seem to agree or identify with either anarchism or capitalism nor have confidence in their understanding of the terms.

I’ve even explained to you how ancap is just a common name and what the ideology called that actually is. That your brain skips anything you don’t expect from this conversation is your own flaw, sorry.

Maybe don’t be so quick to label yourself, let your mind explore without the baggage of assuming what you are a priori.

That’s amazing.