I am not sure you realize that Ancap replaces government with something like globalist. If you assume success in an Ancap scenario and iterate it forward a while, you will find that cooperative groups will out-compete individuals. Among cooperative groups, the more competitive ones will out compete the less competitive ones. Unless you borrow a divine power to enforce good will, you will have to rely on nature. In nature competition has productive and destructive components. The hyper competitiveness that the top competitors will tautologically display will employ the means available to them to compete - including destructive or deleterious attacking means.

Now, Ancap likes to say that members will be subject to a group enforced clause of doing no harm to others. Sounds nice. What it means is each person defines and interprets 'harm'. What that is to a hyper competitor, such as a brilliant individual, a sophisticated company, or an artificial super intelligence - is a game. It is a game where the rules are discovering and manipulating the definition of harm and willingness to act and the payoff matrix is a table summarizing the costs and gains of it.

I think that the 'freedom' idea that proponents of AnCap anticipate it delivering will be quite a different thing than the 'freedom' that they actually experience from it.

I think it is redundant for me to state that Anarcho-Capitalism is a simplistic conception that amounts to a wishful fantasy that uses imprecise ideas as a cosmetic to gloss over its many flaws. That being said, it has parts of ideas and goals that can be extracted and fit into better systems - so it shouldn't be discarded entirely.