So Murray Rothbard and his compatriots at the von Mises Institute have always been somewhat of an influence on me, despite me never having bought into the entirety of anarcho-capitalism. I do have to say I am driven further to their radicalism by the fact the arguments against their stances are generally shortsightedly flimsy, all of which share the same core: In anarchy, who builds the public goods? Who builds the roads? Who provides firefighting services? Who builds parks?
I think the conceptual framework of anarcho-capitalism still has some practical problems to overcome, but the problem of public goods is one solved to an extent that even they underestimate. An ancap will happily mention that the first great roads and lighthouses there privately owned (What government built the Silk Road?), but it goes deeper than that: the alleged problem of public goods is really only little more than a lack of entrepreneurial foresight.
The traditional idea is that the only real way to fund a privately owned road is by stuffing it with meddlesome toll booths, which the state allows us to avoid. Electronic vehicle identification has made it easier to collect cash from customers, but this is hardly the optimal solution.
A road owner could just as well fund his road by not charging drivers at all, instead by selling billboard space on the side of his road or by renting desirable land next to the road to various stores, either way he could relatively easily pick up the cost of maintenance and sufficient profit. Lighthouses, similarly don't need to charge individual ships or users, which would hardly make sense, instead they could be paid for by surrounding dockyards.
Anarcho-capitalists deserve a lot of sympathy in the area of fire and defense insurance as well. Let's say that in an anarchist society, fire and police services are provided by various firms to subscribers to their own types of insurance. So what if Billy Jones (or Robinson Crusoe or whoever they always use) doesn't have insurance when his house catches fire or is robbed? Frankly nothing so different from when a person without health insurance demands emergency medical assistance: the firefighters he calls charge the full uninsured cost of their services and he pays it back in installments if necessary. The incentive to insure oneself still remains while in a pinch the services do as well. Of course it might make sense for individuals to collectively consent to fire or police service in concert in the form of a homeowners' association, which further facilitates consistency and eases their minds.
If anything putting a set of market transactions exclusively in public control ends up creating exhausting moral hazards for everyone involved. It's the much maligned socialization of private failure and myopia and is hardly a basis for a mature society. It just seem strange for people to simultaneously complain that X problem will exist intractably in a individualist anarchist society and simultaneously a big, greedy entrepreneur will solve X problem for vicious monopolistic (not really) prices.
I suppose I have sympathy for anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists because nearly all the "refutations" of their theorizations consist of x doesn't exist in our society, therefore x cannot exist, an easy statement in a society when government services explicitly crowd out and delegitimize private alternatives. I do feel that there is need to elaborate on the actual incentives private courts would have to follow natural law and the natural restrictions on potentially coercive power, but ironically I agree wholeheartedly with the more radical contentions of ancaps.