>>4517
I think it's incoherent. It's more an attempt to make state hierarchy more fluid and democratic than actually getting rid of the state. Or at least the left wing original one is. You've got a load of communes ganging together in a confederation and electing delegates that elect delegates, and these are supposedly "instantly" re-callable, but that's all depending on the democratic consensus below them. It's in fact merely a state based off of direct (consensus) democracy.
Classic Anarchy: Direct Democratic State Socialism
Now, Ancap, what's that? Well, you have a load of private property based claims that give exclusive control with no mediation above them, and polycentric law. Polycentric law would logically mean clashing laws, or clashing enforcers of different variations on the NAP. This makes Ancap essentially a secessionist ideology based on splitting up the state into micro-monarchies or tribes depending on the ownership scheme of the property. This would wind back the European clock to the days of chieftains battling across various tribes. Supposedly, the NAP would stop this and make it peaceful, but people would really just fight over how far the NAP extends and different interpretations of it, whether enclosure was enough to claim property, or whether you had to mix your labor, or not.
Ancap: Neo-Tribalism.
Now, what about the disadvantages of these ideologies?
For Classical Anarchy: Consensus is slow and instant recall would gum the system up, and so it would be out competed by representative democratic systems, and even dictatorships. With the ideological element running against efficiency, there may be a lot of purges before the system becomes a dictatorship, or a system led by a labor aristocracy. The socialism itself would have to give way to exploitation so that the capital capacity of the society could actually be expanded, meaning that ultimately it would just transition to a capitalist representative democracy, but possibly not before delving into Stalinist madness.
For Ancap: Economies of scale mean that larger tribes (up to the point diseconomies of scale kick in) can win more physical fights, and have more financial resources with which to pay protection agencies and enforce their version of the NAP. There would eventually arise an empire with lots of tribute states outside it, and as generations go on, rents would seem more like taxes, and the oligopoly power would mean that the market wouldn't present enough choice to make voting with your wallet or feet possible. People would start calling for representation. The system would evolve into an empire, based off of shareholder rights, which would make it a lot like early democracy which had land ownership based franchise. Eventually, franchise would be expanded due to populist pressure and possibly revolt, leading us back to the representative capitalist system we are in now.
So, before rejecting a system for a radical hypothetical new alternative, try to learn why we have the system we do now.