While I can appreciate the ancap desire for a statelessness, I do not appreciate why they desire it. Most here at @101 may view capitalism as a system of power relations. I fully concur. But, as I've said elsewhere on this site, capitalism is a system of logic. 'Anarcho-' capitalism is simply a hard-nosed *perspective* which takes that logical system as reality itself, that is, reality 'freed' of anyone's perspective. 'Value-free' as old Mises used to claim for his 'praxeology.' It is reality.
But that's an out-and-out lie. The conceptual field of every logical system is provided by what is already considered to be 'worthy' and 'fitting,' that is, axiomatic, as the very origins of the term tells us. An axiom is an imperative, a command, an "ought to," rather than a description of what "is." It's morality.
It may come as no surprise that the word 'ought' and 'own' share the same roots. And this is significant, given the primacy of 'self-ownership' in the ancap axiomatic pantheon, out of which the ancap field of play is constructed. And the game played there is usually deductive logic for that very reason. But, 'own(ing)' is ambiguous, as is 'self.'
Love him, hate him, or just don't care, Stirner understood this and used similar language ancaps use, but his 'self' or 'ego' (unique one) was insubstantial, simply a linguistic end-point of which nothing else can really be said. Ancaps, following Rand and Rothbard (and addicted to the same logopiates), adhere to the contradictory nonsense called the 'Law of Identity' (scary...a law!) at the end of the day. A=A;You=you. It's self-evident! After all, you are typing this post! It never occurs to our quixotic rationalists, that logical argumentation ceases whenever flesh is brought in to 'prove' a logical argument.
But, the 'self-evidence' of 'self,' 'ownership' or 'self-ownership' is no argument. It tells us nothing about how I am my own property, since 'own' is, as stated above, a moral evaluation. I am not a willing participant in anyone's moral evaluation. And to say an 'ought' is 'self-evident' is speaking ye olde tyme metaphysical lore . One cannot see (as 'evident' ) an imperative. Ever.
So, all in all, ancap logic which informs their relations with others, the earth, non-humans, and so on, begins as a command (imperative). It is hierarchical within and without. It depends on obedience to a logical system as it spins its horrid web of reification, quantification, dead categorizations. It is metaphysical, plain and simple, and reveres its own valuations of the real over the real. There is no process, flux, love of the uncertain, the unintelligible, the ephemeral, that is to say... living.
Edited for typos.