I’m totally open to that - I reasoned my way into this position.

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-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.

If your proposed system ended up leading to large amounts of suffering, worse than the current system, would that convince you it was less moral?

I would feel very sad, and I would want to do something about it. But I would do so without breaking the NAP. Which means not taking other people's money/labor and letting some third-party spend it as they see fit under the guise of "reducing suffering", even though the goal is noble. I would spend my own money to the degree with which I'm comfortable and how strongly I feel.

This doesn't mean it's a "less moral" system. As a counter-example: Would putting surveillance cameras inside every house to prevent domestic violence be a "more moral" system just because it reduces more suffering? Where do we draw the line for which rights we're okay with violating in order to stop suffering? I just put it at a very non-arbitrary spot, which is the NAP.

That would only work for consequentialists, which Ancaps are not, I believe.

Correct yes - The ends don't justify the means essentially.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Correct. Ancaps - well, Voluntaryists, if you want to be precise about it - are deontological libertarians.

Consequentialist libertarians seek to maximize individual Liberty. Deontological libertarians seek to minimize immoral actions.