Ah. I think one advantage an ancap society would have is that there would be no politics. So like this situation you're describing, democrats can elect legislators and officials who can change the culture of Texas by force in a way that's generally accepted as legitimate. Whereas in an qncap social, those channels to change things by force won't exist in a legitimate way.

The other is that most ancaps agree that in a society governed by the NAP, you would have lots of mini societies. A voluntary commune or socialist community, or religious covenant could theoretically exist without violating the NAP. In which case, there wouldn't be as much utility in forcing your culture onto other people.

If you're new to this philosophy, I'd recommend reading or listening to Tom Woods. He makes the libertarian argument very strong and accessible to everyone. It's hard to find him making weak arguments about any of this stuff.