I've known "minarchists" that other than semantics were what I would anarchists. Like Michael Badnarik, he's for voluntary taxation and is OK with polycentric law. I just think he likes teaching his classes on the constitution to much to come out as an anarchist. Here's a debate between Stefan Molyneux and Badnarik. While Molyneux isn't a fan of religeon he's had several good conversations with minarchists in the last month. [James Corbett] [Laurette Lynn]
You've probably seen Rothbard's definition of a state:I don't know what's keeping from going yellow and black but usually it seems like polycentric law is the hold up. If that's the case Robert P. Murphy does fantastic work on the subject.
The Market for Security
Chaos Theory [PDF] [MP3]
I'm not familiar with what polycentric law is, but looking it up on Wikipedia, it seems to be describing people have multiple governments to choose from? That seems to me what would naturally happen in an AnCap society anyway. And from some of those states would probably spring up. I'm not saying I'm okay with the states (as Rothbard defines) growing out of that, it just seems like that's only logical.
Some of the reasons why I ain't AnCap are:
(1) As I said, I'm relatively new to libertarianism.
(2) "Converting" to AnCap seems like a much bigger leap than going from a (kind of) NeoCon, to libertarian Constitutionalist, to something a little more than minarchism, to minarchism.
(3) The only actual book I've read on the subject is
The Ethics of Liberty, which overall I really enjoyed, but some of it was kinda weird.
(4) I'm currently reading
Man, Economy, and State (though I am stuck and it's caused me not to read in the last few days). I know Wendy McElroy said MES is what brought her to anarchism, so we'll see where I am when I get done with that. I hope to finish it before summer starts.