Scan this article on libertarian morality. Consider this quote from the article:

In conclusion, we found strong support for our second prediction, that libertarians will rely upon emotion less – and reason more – than will either liberals or conservatives. Further, multi-variate models suggest that these emotional differences may lead to certain value orientations which in turn predispose individuals toward libertarian self-identification. In the next section we explore how these value orientations may also have roots in specific patterns of (and attitudes about) social relationships, consistent with theories about the social function of moral reasoning [17], [29], [30], [33].

Another quote:

Research by Baron-Cohen [62] has shown that relatively high systemizing and low empathizing scores are characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism. We might say that liberals have the most “feminine” cognitive style, and libertarians have the most “masculine.” These effects hold even when men and women are examined separately, as can be seen in Table 3. Indeed, the “feminizing” of the Democratic party in the 1970s [63] may help explain why libertarians moved increasingly into the Republican party in the 1980s.

Even if you're right and communism is a great way to live, it's still a fact that libertarians such as anarcho-capitalists tend to have greater analytical skills than the general population. In my experience with universities, libertarian clubs are mostly populated by STEM majors, and socialist clubs are mostly populated by humanities students. Maybe our analytic tendency to break complex systems down into component parts is fundamentally flawed when it comes to understanding society, as you say (What I'm doing here is called hypothetical reasoning. I assume your premise and follow through with it in my mind even if I don't believe in that initial assumption.) Nevertheless, even if communists are right to reject our arguments, it does not imply they're capable of following the logic in them. That is to say, your previous post was a non-sequitor, it did not actually respond to my criticism and that is my criticism.

You try to argue with the perceived spirit of my post and not my exact wording. You don't actually look to see the logical implications of my words.