Also, is Murray Rothbard like Voldemort to you? You seem to refuse to even say his name.
In all cases it's explicitly community driven, because no claim on on property can withstand disagreement with the local community.
Take land ownership - it's de facto not enforceable without either government or communal support.
Anarchism is by definition "left-wing". If flat earthers redefined "globe" to mean a saucer shaped object and the media started to run with that because flat earthers made for "good content", opposing that usage wouldn't be dismissed as "arguing semantics" either. Sometimes it's important that words mean things. Heck, the entire political right in the US has spent the past years making the changing meanings of words their main issue. Clearly "arguing semantics" matters sometimes.
Calling yourself "anarcho-capitalist" is like calling yourself "punk" because you're knee-deep in Sex Pistols merch. It's using a label as a fashion accessory, not a political statement. Clearly you think political labels have some use or else you wouldn't refer to "left-wing" anarchists.
There's no historical basis for the label "anarcho-capitalism". Ancaps claim they're building on individualist anarchism if asked to justify their label but even Stirner was to the left of them. "Anarcho-capitalism" isn't promoting individualist anarchism, it's promoting autocracy. Anarchism is the absence of oppression and power hierarchies, "anarcho-capitalism" is the absence of regulations and limitations on individual power, relying on The Market instead of Divine Right as a justifying cause.
"Anarcho-capitalism" is not only not "real anarchism", it's not any anarchism, just like throwing bricks at Starbucks windows is neither necessary nor sufficient (i.e. almost entirely orthogonal) for being an anarchist.