I have been doing this with anarcho-capitalism for a while, since it's almost the exact opposite of my views.

The most important question I asked of the subject was, what's the difference between a State and a landlord? If you reject the former but accept the latter, what does this tell us?

From what I've seen, there are two main ways of answering that question, depending on how one understands the concept of the State to begin with, and these I consider the main approaches to anarcho-capitalism in general.

The first is that what makes an organization a State is the moral status that people assign to it. Thus, whether an organization is or is not a State depends on what the general population considers acceptable for this organization to do in response to people who break the rules that it creates. We consider it okay for the State to punish you by taking your property or by imprisoning your person. But the abstract "Stateless landlord" that these anarcho-capitalists want society to be run by couldn't do these things. At most, they could remove you from their property. So, they could use force, but only for the purpose of expelling you from an area, whereas the State uses force for the exact opposite reason: to prevent you from leaving. This is a sufficient distinction to form a position around, even if in extreme circumstances the distinction becomes fuzzy (what if the area outside the landlord's land is smaller than the area in it? Doesn't "the wilderness" become a de facto jail cell?).

Their position can thus be reduced to wanting the general public to change its opinion of what is an acceptable form of punishment in response to breaking established rules, and to that end it's not totally crazy. A change in popular opinion among Westerners resulted in most countries no longer practicing the death penalty, for example. Why not take another step in that direction by getting rid of imprisonment and confiscation, leaving instead only deportation? (For that to be practical would likely require regions become smaller, but this is an added bonus in their view.)

The second approach is to make no attempt at drawing a clear line of separate between the State and the landlord and to instead think of landlords as essentially being micro-States. The actual problem isn't with modern governments particularly, but rather with any institution that has a high cost of exit, which could be a public or private agency. Society should generally pursue lower exit costs in all areas of life, which means it should tend toward making States smaller and less restrictive, or, more landlord-like. This is a gradient, with no actual finish line, but instead only an idea of what direction we should generally be moving in.

From there it's not difficult to reason that if we had these small, competitive micro-States, regardless of whether they've exactly given up their power to confiscate and imprison, the most successful of them would be the ones with the brightest people living there, to drive their society forward by their innovation and leadership. If all people could move freely between regions, such people would naturally move to whichever region had the economic system that most rewarded them for their talents, which of all systems yet known appears to be capitalism, which rewards them with a personal fortune in private property.