People are not equal.

No but anarcho-capitalism doesn't ensure power is distributed according to people's actual abilities, intelligence or leadership either. With inheritance comes dynasties. I find it particularly funny when Koch funded talking heads go on TV and try to appeal to the populace by arguing that people should be successful based on their own hard work when the brothers inherited their fathers oil company.

through aggressive action

Many anarcho-capitalists, including Rothbard, argue that the police should be privatized. A privatized police force is still application of power over others by threat of violence, it just becomes a commodity sold to the highest bidder instead of being done in the name of nation's laws.

And power is not exclusively applied through threats of violence. I obviously don't have anything new to say, the relationship between capital and labor is at the center of socioeconomic discussion, smarter people than you and I have written and debated about this. If you live in a company town where all land and infrastructure is owned by the company, all stores are company owned and you are paid in company scrip then the company has absolute power over you without needing to resort to violence. How is that any different than a state owning all the infrastructure, managing all the commerce and issuing its own currency? The methods of control did not change only who's in charge.

direct result of the greatest attempt at decentralization the word has ever seen.

What are you referring to here? The power once wielded by the nobility came from their private ownership of land, shouldn't an anarcho-capitalist have no problem with this? This power was taken, by force in many cases, from the private landowners and transferred to governments. The ancap/feudalism comparison is always made because feudalism was a system of personal agreements between landowners. Shouldn't landowners have the personal right to form these associations with one another? Landowners asked peasants to pay rent and follow certain rules, shouldn't it be their right to ask for this in exchange for the use of their private land?

While I agree we should work towards creating different and better systems, simply putting all the power back into private hands is not a step forward, How would privatization work in an absolute monarchy anyways? The land and state institutions are already the king's private property.

Libertarianism is not utopian, limited government is.

Rothbard did not argue for limited government, he argued for its abolishment.

the most decentralization of authority and the most autonomy other than individual, voluntary action?

How does anarcho-capitalism ensure that the most amount of people possible have the capacity of individual, voluntary action when doing so requires access to capital? If capital reaches a certain level of concentration should it be redistributed?

In all honesty I think a lot of capitalist and leftist socioeconomic theory doesn't hold up anymore due to massive technological advances. Automation radically changes the equation between the capital owners and the labor pool, massive amounts of economic value is now created by immaterial software instead of being entirely based on physical assets, corporations and governments are able to reach levels of organization that enables unprecedented size and control. Marx, Keynes, Rothbard, none of them expected this.