What do you find unpersuasive?

For example, when I was reading An Anarchist FAQ, one of the first things that hit me was the completely different sense of morality and fairness.

I am not at a point where I feel that I "get" what an anarcho-socialist society could look like, so I'm not to the point where I can fully dismiss it. But, from my readings, I'm so far completely unconvinced that anarcho-socialist societies could properly allocate resources without prices and property ownership. Also, everything I've read seems to completely disregard incentives. "People will spontaneously labor to produce goods that other people need." Why? "Because of a sense of mutual aid". What if I think a desire for mutual aid only goes so far and you really need to tap into people's rational self-interest to get them to produce for others? I haven't read a good response to the last question, but I'm still reading.

Also, there's a big deal about transforming work from toil into productive play. How can you turn coal mining into productive play? How can you make coal mining something that allows people to "manifest their unique artistic essences" into the product of their labor?

So, to recap: different senses of fairness, allocating resources without prices, and transforming work into productive play. Those are the big things that stick out in my mind right now.

Or perhaps, what do you find persuasive about "anarcho"-capitalism?

I think that good enforcement of property rights and voluntary trade makes it so that people acting in their own self-interest will benefit themselves and others. I think it leads to good allocation of resources (in the goal of maximizing human well-being and happiness) and proper care of the environment. It also jives with my gut feelings of fairness and morality. Also, I think a market of competing providers of justice and defense have biases towards good policies and good results (and in contrast, coercive states and collective decision making in general have biases towards bad results).