While I find it much overemphasized, I'm not rejecting consensus-creation. But it seems that once people come to an agreement, there is absolutely no need to turn it into a rule. They already agree on it, no need to enforce it.
What bothers me about anarcho-democrats is their willingness to impose on minorities with supermajorities, while busy reinventing federated polities and political representation. Same old shit.
How about: dispense with rulership (archy) as a whole, completely, go for an-archy. Contradictions can either dissolve into unstable agreements, or dissolve the social relation, or maintain a productive antagonism that we can learn to navigate. None of that needs to be imposed, ruled, governed, represented.
Instead of ruling each other in the name of a polity (neighborhood, commune, city, state), we can have social relations that are entirely apolitical. That way, we don't actually have to act and relate in the name of any fixed collectivity or identity. Instead we can freely constitute our social relations, as an ongoing process, without claiming permanent territory.
That's when things get complicated, and folks tend to split into different ideas. I personally lean towards the idea that each community distributes it's resources in an actively consensual way, with councils of citizens deciding what needs to get done, and volunteering to get it done. This could be coordinated with other councils in a confederation of spokescouncils. There's lot of ideas out there. A good place to start, and where a lot of thought in this area starts from is Petr Kropotkin's book The Conquest of Bread. If you aren't sure that people can work together for the good of everyone, another one of his books I would recommend is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. They're both short-ish books, and available for free download. Murray Bookchin is a more modern writer who also might interest you. His writing on the concept of Libertarian Municipalism is a good read, and his book Post-Scarcity Anarchism is a good place to start exploring some of those ideas. As for the "free market". I'm at school right now, and don't have the time or incliniation to go into depth about all my thoughts on it, but a quick take is this: the "free market" is propaganda. It only frees the class of people who have capital from being responsible to the rest of humanity. The people who benifit from it are consistantly from a class of people who already have money. Naomi Klien has a great book on capitalism, and how it ends up working in places with no government or little government, and the results. The Shock Doctrine is a good book, and the book I would recommend read the most out of anything else I pointed you towards in my post.