I’ll check it out.

I appreciate that, thanks for hearing me out.

Counter point: If there is no reason for some people who are capable of contributing to society to actually contribute, at least a good portion of those people will not, but they’ll still take from the system.

This is well known as the "free rider problem", and the extent to which it is a problem and how it can be addressed is widely discussed by anarchists. I'm sure everyone must be getting sick of me referencing it by now, but our old friend an anarchist FAQ addresses the issue in great detail, but I'll quote a few relevant paragraphs:

Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work then they cannot (must not) be forced to by means of physical coercion. This makes some wonder what happens if someone refuses to work in a libertarian society.

[...]

This ignores the many people who do volunteer work (often in addition to their "real jobs"). It also ignores those who spend their time contributing to projects they are interested in (such as fan journals) which would be considered work in other contexts. A classic example of this is the internet, particularly webpages like Wikipedia and software projects like php.

[...]

There would be few people who refuse to do any kind of productive activity. The question arises of what to do with those (a small minority, to be sure) who refuse to work.

On this question there is some disagreement. Some anarchists argue that the lazy should not be deprived of the means of life. Social pressure, they argue, would ensure those who take from, but do not contribute, to the community to listen to their conscience and start producing for the community that supports them. If this did not happen, then the person who refused to contribute would be asked to leave (freedom of association means the freedom not to associate)

Most anarchists agree with Camillo Berneri when he argued that anarchism should be based upon "no compulsion to work, but no duty towards those who do not want to work."

This means that an anarchist society will not continue to feed, clothe, house someone who can produce but refuses to. Anarchists have had enough of the wealthy under capitalism consuming but not producing and do not see why they should support a new group of parasites after the revolution.

Obviously, there is a difference between not wanting to work and being unable to work. The sick, children, the old, pregnant women and so on will be looked after in libertarian communism. As child rearing would be considered "work" along with other more obviously economic tasks, mothers and fathers will not have to leave their children unattended and work to make ends meet. Instead, consideration will be given to the needs of both parents and children as well as the creation of community nurseries and child care centres.

We have to stress here that an anarchist society will not deny anyone the means of life. This would violate the voluntary labour which is at the heart of all schools of anarchism. Unlike capitalism, the means of life will not be monopolised by any group -- including the commune. This means that someone who does not wish to join a commune or who does not pull their weight within a commune and are expelled or choose to leave will have access to the means of making a living.

Edit: the guy with the Patreon shit-talking capitalism is hilarious.

We still live in a capitalist society, despite how much we are trying to change that. People need to make money to pay bills under capitalism or else they'd starve, go homeless, etc. You can be an anti-capitalist and still make money. Having a Patreon is a lot more principled than taking sponsorships and ad deals, for example, because it is an entirely voluntary system.