The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. "anarcho-capitalism" (or the term I prefer: libertarian-anarchist) is the political philosophy of bringing freedom of choice to government, breaking the monopoly on retaliatory force and allowing free-market mechanisms to select the best system of government which does the job while staying out the way. I suggest doing some reading on the history of Anarchism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

> The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation.

You're talking to someone who has studied the issue in depth. I'm not just going from an uneducated assumption.

I honestly think that a "market for force" would quickly result in something akin to feudalism at best.

Can you explain the mechanism whereby different groups weilding force would just agree to disagree and co-exist?

What would happen in practice would be that some groups are defeated, and the others pledge fealty in a kind of feudalistic system which just ends in a dictatorship.

Of course, it would be likely that some particular group (which might even win) would represent some specific ideology, and just turn back into a regular government (such as a constitutional republic).

I'd definitely be supporting the "competing government" in favor of establishing a constitutional republic.

They'd replace the "jackbooted thugs of the state" with the jackbooted non-union or pensioned thugs of the lowest bidder.