Another common criticism of anarcho-capitalism that I've seen is that people think that if people have freedom to have the ability to defend themselves, for there to be private armies, than then this will lead to warlords taking over and ancapistan would be warlords constantly at war with each other.
I think ancaps in response have argued that states are kind of like "warlords" and they sometimes go to war with each other, and often are at peace because peace can be mutually beneficial. I guess there's no real guarantee of how much war ancapistan would or wouldn't have, any more than there's that guarantee with states.
What do you think of the "warlord" objection and how do you respond to it?
The stupid masses ruining things would be my biggest worry about ancap society, more than all these other theoretical problems people come up with. You'll need something to appease "disenfranchised" people if you don't want continuous revolution. The militia will try to keep them down, but like you see with rich leftists today, there would be many elites trying to virtue signal to the people that they're on their side rather than actually helping them become self-sufficient individualists. Is it a violation of the NAP to shoot some aggrandizing tech CEO because he's funding anti-ancap activist groups that want to seize my property?