The future must be anarchocapitalist. The nation states can’t continue on. They’re self-destructive: politicians, once they’ve got the taste of power, will always spiral out of control. So the future is either anarchist, or it’s dead. Let’s stay positive and go for the living option: the future’s anarchist.
The question remains: which flavour? The pure, 100% anarchist kind (anarcho-communist, or ancom), or the more pragmatic kind (allowing private property, and employer/employee relationships; anarcho-capitalist, or ancap)? Since private property is inborn into all live; live that spends finite resources to acquire items like a nest to breed in, young as a result of satisfaction of hormonal urges (a biologist might say to the reason beings have those urges (Richard Dawkins famously wrote a book about genes wanting to be reproduced), I disagree with that, because the urges are simply there, they may result in certain effects, but that does not mean that those urges/the hormones that drive them, are sentient, goal oriented beings), etc. Think of a toddler that has found a toy. It may be a sharp toy, but it will dislike having it taken away nonetheless. Children will fight over who gets to play with a particular toy, when the floor is covered in unused toys.
Thus private property, is the perfectly standard mode of natural affairs. The only way to keep people out if doing that is by having a big, evil, aggressive, coercive government apparatus. So, the USSR is the inevitable outcome of socialism, utterly negating the concept of anarchism. (No-ruler-ism).
This means that all anarchism,will be ancapism or it will simply not be anarchism (and be hell on earth instead). I think the definition of anarchism should include a reference to the NAP, since anarchism means nobody tells you what to do, so long as you don’t aggress on them.
Also, ancapism is the only way to ensure environmental protection: since when the last few rhinoceroses are privately owned, people will want to view them, touch them, and pay good money for the privileges, the money can be used to finance the upkeep of the magnificent beasts, and to feed the owners as well (and his staff). Meaning the owners will want to protect their investment. And so work to ensure survival of the species, for the love of money.
Look at two species of animal: the aforementioned rhino and the cow. Cows are financially useful, so the species is maintained. Rhinos are not allowed to be the property of anyone because that dishonors the glorious creatures. So they are threatened with extinction on a continual basis. Because nobody feels compelled to endure their safety. The measures to stop poachers are inadequate, because there is no sufficient incentive to stop them.
If there are more than enough rhinos left alive to form a credible breeding population, the funding may also come from hunting permits.