I'm on the fence about every major economic theory except one. Can someone convince me otherwise?

I'm torn on the value of Adam Smith's capitalism, I love the idea of Marxist principles but don't see viable paths towards implementation in history, both Keynesian and Austrian economics have valid points but both feel missing something.<br><br>I don't understand how anyone can think anarcho-capitalism could be both stable and fair.<br><br>It almost feels like everything about the theoretical composition of anarcho-capitalist society is generated from the basic assumption that any government intervention is negative, and is thus biased in both its composition and its critique of other ideologies.<br><br>I just don't understand how it can work. How would any form of anarcho-capitalism be stable?<br><br>When a company does something unscrupulous, who addresses the problems? If it's the people, is this ever not some form of mob justice? <br><br>When someone gets their space invaded by someone else, who resolves this? In an anarcho-capitalist society it feels inevitable that this would be the person with the strongest private agency, which sounds like the worst form of totalitarianism but on an individual basis.<br><br>I feel like the closest form of anything resembling anarcho-capitalism both in theory and practice was the feudal system, but it was just standard capitalism with the "state" being the company/feudal lord and the vast majority of the "employees" being forced into their role from birth and rarely having any choice in the matter.<br><br>For me, the idea of anarcho-capitalism seems like the equivalent of believing in the efficiency of the free market while ignoring every instance in which corporate power both subverts the market and fucks over workers. Then, compound that by removing any semblance of both positive externalities and basic protections of the negative externalities of capitalism.<br><br>&#x200B;