Society is coordinated by individual people. The market, including the political market, produces a sum of what these people want, restrained by what they are willing and able to sacrifice to get it. When a lot of people want rulers, we get rulers. When that is no longer true, why do you think that the political market would still have small states across the board? I mean, yes that is a likely outcome, but why stop there? For people to believe government should be local and limited, and for people to believe that government should be of the individual over himself, is not that huge of a leap. It is only a rational leap in the mind, and I see the two to be just about as likely as each other.

So in my view, both Anarcho-Capitalism and Anti-Federalism are equally difficult to achieve, but one is more preferable to the other. Something being closer in its end result to the status quo does not necessarily make it "practical." And by adhering to inconsistent ideology, you weaken and complicate the simple libertarian message: no hierarchy of authority, consent-based society where even those who enforce the law are subject to that same law.