From what I've gathered, the real debate is between neoclassical economists and behavioral economists. Behavioral economists are more empirical, studying exactly how incentives work and how people behave in the economy. "Austrian" economics (aside from what was done decades ago, in Austria) only lives on as a pseudoscientific attempt to justify libertarian politics. Politically, I'm largely libertarian myself, but there's nothing more unscientific than turning something like economics into an apologia for anarcho-capitalism.
So you believe that "government cannot calculate, ever" is bullshit?
If government can calculate the allocation of resource then it invaildated the entire concept of anarcho-capitalism.
This seem an unlikely hypothesis because government tend to listen to political talking points rather than economic talking points. Whatever is political prudent tend to not be neccesary economically prudent.
I think economics should be a descriptive science, not a set of arguments for one particular political system. Markets have certain consequences that we may or may not want, and so do certain types of government interventions. Planned economies don't tend to have very many desirable consequences, as far as I can tell, but that's not how most economic policies work anyway.
I'm not a good enough economist to give an intellectually honest account of what would happen in an anarcho-capitalist system, but I doubt from a historical and anthropological standpoint that anarcho-capitalism is likely to ever happen anyway.
