Meh, I'm on the fence. I see lots of good reasons for it, but some strikes against it like externalities. I'm still working with some ACers to see if they can resolve my questions before I commit. They have me down to miniarchistism or at least strong libertarianism though. I don't buy the argument that all government is immoral on its face. They haven't convinced me, but I haven't wholly written it out yet.
Edit: Actually my biggest concern not that business would take over the role of the state, because most AC ideas deal with the state- business interaction and go into a lot of detail how business would be prevented from coercion without the state. It is that other influencing structures such as religion and community opinion which would limit the "liberty" ACists claim would be maximized under said legal structure. That is what I'm working out with them. As far they haven't convinced me I'm sticking with miniarchism.
Yeah, I've had a lot of discussion with anarcho-cappies. They tend to be sharp and make good points, but none of them have ever convinced me that getting rid of the state solves the problem of defending liberty against abuse of power, or that a institution similar to the state in function wouldn't just reappear with a different structure and name.
The mistake I think Rothbard and his followers made is conflating the state with aggregation of power to the detriment of individual liberty. I think the latter is completely feasible without the former, and, in certain circumstances is actually more likely to be problematic without the democratic republican state acting as (an albeit not entirely impartial) mediator between parties and making an attempt, no matter how half-assed it may be, to protect the rights of those with no power or wealth, and to have some accountability to the people as a whole.
The other thing I have a big problem wrapping my head around is why ACs seem to think it is possible to have large disparities of wealth without corresponding large disparities of power, and abuse of that power (to the detriment of the rights and liberties of other people), considering the fact that these two things have always gone hand-in-hand since the beginning of civilization. Control more resources, and you have more power-- way it's always been, and likely the way it always will be.
Finally, the idea of a completely organically self-regulating economy, with no external controls, manipulation or interference, whether that be a Marxian communist society or a purely free-market capitalist society, I find to be utopian and unrealistic.
Topic: Your philosophical stance?