rights

This is not formatted as a question, but I will assume it was meant as one. The answer is simple. Without the perceived legitimacy that government now enjoys (your defense of same shown as evidence), they would meet resistance and vilification at every turn. Kinda hard to sell your product when all your customers hate you. 

Not really.  It would all be done in the name of good PR:  supply employee housing? sounds great.  Operate a few stores by said housing?  still sounds good.  supply protective services to those living on your property?  who wouldn't agree with that?  Then they realize that they have an effective monopoly on a reasonable population, and quality of services start going downhill.  This is where it turned from a company cutting costs by removing a middelman to their employees changed into a government, with all its pitfalls, a fascist state in the middle of your AnCap wonderland.  This is the Cyberpunk dystopia that we fear.

Hmmm....were company towns outlawed by the government?  No?  Then why do we not have large numbers of company towns today?

Actually yes.  Through t he mechanism of trust-busting and the arrivial of organized labor willing to bust head and get shot for their troubles, companies found it wasnt worth the trouble to keep company towns.

Every AnCaps favorite author, Ayn Rand, favored company towns in the form of Galts Gulch.  if its not run by Galt, why name it after him?

...the arrival of organized labor willing to bust head and get shot for their troubles...

Which I suppose you assume will just evaporate under AnCap? I, and probably most of the AnCaps here, support organized labor and collective bargaining.

charities ... can do anything the government can do, and probably more efficiently.

Charities have to hope enough income comes in to do what they want; therefore they budget their resources.  A government bureaucrat knows the public's pockets are always there for the picking, so "budgeting" is something done only for show.

Not as bad as you make it sound.  Every person in office knows that raising taxes is unpopular, so actually increasing a budget is difficult.  However, cutting services is also unpopular, so things tend to remain at a status quo, without significant civilian input.  The other side is that with a slowly growing economy, a slight increase in a budge is called an increase by the opposition, but a decrease(relative to GDP, and tax base) by the incumbents. 

They don't have to raise taxes. They can just print more money

Which they know causes inflation, so they aren't really willing to do that except as an emergency measure.  By your logic, taxes would be zero, as any gov't budget just says "print me this much money."  Admittedly, gov'ts have done this to some extent even with hard currency, and they saw the inflationary results, sometimes to the point of revolution. 

...the arrival of organized labor willing to bust head and get shot for their troubles...

Which I suppose you assume will just evaporate under AnCap? I, and probably most of the AnCaps here, support organized labor and collective bargaining.

While many large companies remain staunchly anti-union?  Unions work well when there is a limited labor market, but when there is a glut of workers, as in low skilled labor, especially if a high unemployment rate also exists, the Union just doesn't have enough clout to survive without outside help. 

They don't have to raise taxes. They can just print more money

Which they know causes inflation, so they aren't really willing to do that except as an emergency measure.  By your logic, taxes would be zero, as any gov't budget just says "print me this much money."  Admittedly, gov'ts have done this to some extent even with hard currency, and they saw the inflationary results, sometimes to the point of revolution.

Only in emergency situations? Have you seen the economy recently? The Fed stopped telling people how much money they print, recently. doesn't that raise a red flag for you?

...the arrival of organized labor willing to bust head and get shot for their troubles...

Which I suppose you assume will just evaporate under AnCap? I, and probably most of the AnCaps here, support organized labor and collective bargaining.

While many large companies remain staunchly anti-union?  Unions work well when there is a limited labor market, but when there is a glut of workers, as in low skilled labor, especially if a high unemployment rate also exists, the Union just doesn't have enough clout to survive without outside help.

While many large corporations remain staunchly anti-union. You have to ask yourself, Why? Simple. So they can do the type of BS that CG was worried about, and get away with it. Collective bargaining is how the workers prevent those sorts of abuses. You're right, it doesn't work well when there's so much excess labor. In that sense, the current economic slump seems to be working in the corporations' favor... It's almost enough to subscribe to conspiracy theories.

Unions work well when there is a limited labor market, but when there is a glut of workers, as in low skilled labor, especially if a high unemployment rate also exists, the Union just doesn't have enough clout to survive without outside help. 

You pretty much summed it up there.  Unions work well when there is a limited labor market.  When there is a glut (oversupply) of workers for a particular job, and people should be leaving to try something different (risky and scary though that may be), it takes a government to imprison those people in misery - slogging away at a job they are aren't needed for while (if they are lucky) living off of the progressive brand of "charity" forcibly confiscated from those who still have productive work (less a 50% "administrative" fee).

Unions work well when there is a limited labor market, but when there is a glut of workers, as in low skilled labor, especially if a high unemployment rate also exists, the Union just doesn't have enough clout to survive without outside help. 

You pretty much summed it up there.  Unions work well when there is a limited labor market.  When there is a glut (oversupply) of workers for a particular job, and people should be leaving to try something different (risky and scary though that may be), it takes a government to imprison those people in misery - slogging away at a job they are aren't needed for while (if they are lucky) living off of the progressive brand of "charity" forcibly confiscated from those who still have productive work (less a 50% "administrative" fee).

Actually, a union could work very well in a glut, too.
If you look up the medieval European guilds (with their Templar knight basis), you can see that while they dealt with skilled labor, they were as capable of dealing with gluts (see the origins of the Odd Fellows) as with upkeeping a skilled workforce (expanding as needed, for example by importing Journeymen and Odd Fellows).
For some reason the US seems to have only the kinds of unions that try to help their members not work (much), and not the unions that try to help their members work. Both kinds can and do exist. Some unions definitely hire people to help members retrain for other work, too, although the system is not as streamlined as it was back when the Templars were shaping the earth to match the heavens, dotting it with cathedrals.

Customdesigned.  A 50 % surcharge would be cheap by today's standards.  The actual cost is about $1.40 for each $1.00 of "benefits".

Unions work well when there is a limited labor market, but when there is a glut of workers, as in low skilled labor, especially if a high unemployment rate also exists, the Union just doesn't have enough clout to survive without outside help. 

You pretty much summed it up there.  Unions work well when there is a limited labor market.  When there is a glut (oversupply) of workers for a particular job, and people should be leaving to try something different (risky and scary though that may be), it takes a government to imprison those people in misery - slogging away at a job they are aren't needed for while (if they are lucky) living off of the progressive brand of "charity" forcibly confiscated from those who still have productive work (less a 50% "administrative" fee).

Actually, a union could work very well in a glut, too.
If you look up the medieval European guilds (with their Templar knight basis), you can see that while they dealt with skilled labor, they were as capable of dealing with gluts (see the origins of the Odd Fellows) as with upkeeping a skilled workforce (expanding as needed, for example by importing Journeymen and Odd Fellows).
For some reason the US seems to have only the kinds of unions that try to help their members not work (much), and not the unions that try to help their members work. Both kinds can and do exist. Some unions definitely hire people to help members retrain for other work, too, although the system is not as streamlined as it was back when the Templars were shaping the earth to match the heavens, dotting it with cathedrals.

The skilled labor is the key difference there.  When a group of skilled laborers chooses to boycott someone, there is a much greater force applied than when the unskilled grocery clerks do the same.  The other thing that "skilled" means though is "trainable" and, quite often, "motivated."  These make it much easier to retrain someone to keep them in a job, whereas the unskilled labor has the choice of staying in the underworked job, or leaving and facing no local job.  As you mention, they did develop methods of dealing with local gluts, effectively an information and travel network to help find a better place, but again, this only has meaning for skilled workers, where there is likely to be a lack somewhere.

Every AnCaps favorite author, Ayn Rand, favored company towns in the form of Galts Gulch.  if its not run by Galt, why name it after him?

Because the idea for "the men of the mind" to withdraw their services from the looters - for Atlas to shrug - was John Galt's.

Among the many faults I found in my first reading of Atlas Shrugged was that Mrs. O'Connor willfully overlooked how the looters can always find second- and third-rate people to step up and try to shoulder the load. 

Nothing in later readings had tended to change that opinion of mine.

To the extent that any system or subsystem has redundancy (and engineers like redundancy, building it in whenever and wherever possible, to compensate for human error and other manifestations of "the Breaking Strain"), the political parasites who suck unto positions of power in government tend to be resourceful in their manipulation of people whose priorities in life center upon overcoming the cupidity and stupidity of others to make the machinery run, no matter what.

Any Galt's Gulch refuge would have to swell to the size of St. Louis (at the very least) to bleed off enough of the competent minds to effect the kind of catastrophic decompensation depicted in Ayn Rand's novel.

Among the many faults I found in my first reading of Atlas Shrugged was that Mrs. O'Connor willfully overlooked how the looters can always find second- and third-rate people to step up and try to shoulder the load. 

Yup.  Frex, look at how long it's taken New York to not quite completely destroy the subways despite turning it into a unionized welfare project under LaGuardian.

I'm a second-rater.  An Eddie.  Never denied it.  I am a damned good computer system and network administrator.  I am not a coder aside from the shell scripts that make life tolerable.

And I even burned out on that.  Six years I've been just a clerk.  Couldn't deal with the users and the dead-end job had a health plan worth more than the low wage.  Lisa needed it.  Now she's gone.

One last thing I'm good at.  So I'm going home to New Hampshire to sell chili.  The ghods willing, the widow Moslow will come with me.  But I've hated Jersey the two decades I've spent here in Lisa's home town.  (I admit I'll miss Gunnison Beach as New Hampshire has nothing even close).

...the arrival of organized labor willing to bust head and get shot for their troubles...

Which I suppose you assume will just evaporate under AnCap? I, and probably most of the AnCaps here, support organized labor and collective bargaining.

But thats not market anarchy.  Or any anarchy.

...the arrival of organized labor willing to bust head and get shot for their troubles...

Which I suppose you assume will just evaporate under AnCap? I, and probably most of the AnCaps here, support organized labor and collective bargaining.

But thats not market anarchy.  Or any anarchy.

As I said, you have no idea what Anarcho-capitalism [Market Anarchy] means.

FFS, at least read the Wikipedia article.

The Western world has been reasonably free despite not being either Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist for quite some time. So I don't want to forego the option of simply going back to greater freedom rather than taking an all-or-nothing approach.

For male heads of households, freedom has been diminishing rapidly since the early nineteenth century.  It continues to diminish rapidly.

Of course it does.  In the early nineteenth century, man was king, and anyone or thing that lived under his roof was property, to do with as he pleased.
it was a very anarchic system.

Once women stopped thinking of themselves as the mans property, the mans freedom began eroding.  
One the man had to think of his children, especially female children, as people and not property, his freedom rapidly eroded.

I highly suspect that in an AnCap society, a substantial portion of male heads of households will return to that nineteenth century way of thinking.
Until their wives and children start killing them.

Once a person has lived their life with freedom, they will not easily give it up.

It always amazes me the number of people who will give away their freedom for a little perceived safety.  Then there are those who believe individuals should surrender their freedom for the good of society.  Then there are those who express these sentiments at gun point....

Mascon2: We're getting a lousy response.

Mascon1: That's okay. Marsha explained that votes that aren't cast don't count.

So what we've got in this "vote of confidence" is not only the ad populum fallacy but a typical "Liberal" fraud.  

No such set of pre-ordained choices (the fallacy of false dilemma, commonly known as the "either/or fallacy") should be permitted  - or considered either valid or binding - unless there's a "No Response" or "None of the Above" option included and tracked as a negative in order to determine the extent to which none of the choices offered meet with the solicited subject's approval.

I like to think of it as the "Fribble Off & Die, You Bastard" option.  

Frankly, in a market-capitalist social system where the participants commonly pack heat or maintain some other kind of weaponry on their persons for purposes of self-defense (while the Mascons, by their nature and background, are self-disarmed "Eloi" types), I'd expect the AnCap "Morlocks" to simply slaughter the Massachusetts Mamzeren when the Mascons attempt to impose extortion - er, "taxation" - on those who see no "emergency," no need for their "council," and no reason for any of the alleged "majority" to continue wasting oxygen.

Poor cousin Pierre will be fortunate indeed if the delay in transit that finds him on Ceres sponging off Guy Caillard is extended long enough for the bloodbath to run its course

Heck, these Mascons are "Liberals."  How can they object to being recycled?