> But it's still fundamentally immoral and operates on the assumption that humans are not entitled to ownership of their own lives.
That's a lovely principle, but it means little without enforcement. How would property rights be enforced in anarcho-capitalist society without a system of property laws, courts to adjudicate them, and law enforcement?
> And I've been to Afghanistan and it's a much much more complicated situation than you're describing.
Every real-world society is more complicated than the models we use to describe them. These things all exist on multiple spectra. Socialist Northern Europe is not perfectly or fairly distributive of wealth. Some people in Afghanistan have their property rights enforced by the state.
But on balance, the enforcement of property rights in a country with a weak state like Afghanistan is lower than in Northern Europe, especially the further you get from the government's seat of power. At least today, a warlord cannot take over a town in Belgium and forcibly take over a section of houses to build a garrison.
State enforcement of property rights is the stable foundation on which higher level societal productivity happens. Without it, there are no factories, no secure supply lines, limited commerce and communication. The GDP of most advanced nations would vaporize.