I haven't really seen any AnCaps pose that only physical objects that are produced have real value.

Perhaps I was a little too ambiguous. I understand it's not a position I've seen on this subreddit very often, but it's one I see among the more unsophisticated types, en masse. The argument basically begins at the point of government, arguing that it's an economic parasite because it doesn't "produce" anything, it merely involves a transfer of wealth, okay, fine. But if that's the case, much of what actually takes place in the economy isn't wealth by that definition, even from the point of the economy itself. A clerk at a grocery store isn't "producing" anything akin to a farmer planting a seed in the ground and obtaining fruit/vegetables.

Your next sentence is a bit of a non sequitur. You could believe that non-physical things have value and still believe that a system which effectively does nothing more than wealth-transfers isn't actually creating wealth.

Yes, that's what I'm essentially trying to flesh out.

It almost sounds like you're implying that we don't even think things like a haircut have value, which is peculiar.

I only mean to put it out there, that there are ancaps that argue this.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say really. So what if a grocery store doesn't distinguish between a dollar made by the private sector and a dollar made from a government official? I'm also not sure what you mean by "as far as the economy is concerned however, all it sees is a continuum of exchange taking place". Do you believe that it's simply exchanges in and of themselves that create wealth?

I'm not quite sure what's not clicking for you. The thing is, the argument itself doesn't even make sense to me, yet I see libertarians/ancaps arguing for it all the time. As far as the economy itself is concerned, money is merely circulating. Whether it's from avenue X or Y is irrelevant, so it remains peculiar to me why ancaps would make this kind of an argument.