You do understand it's just a game?

Anarcho-capitalism would never support the idea of such mercenary warfare as a legitimate business tactic. Anarcho-capitalism is based on voluntary exchange, strict property rights, and the rejection of aggression—even when it comes to corporate entities. In a truly free society, corporations, like individuals, would be bound by the non-aggression principle and respect for property. See: Law without Government (2022 Remake)

Private defense agencies—unlike politicians controlling a state’s military assets—would have financial incentives to avoid wasteful conflict. The most well-known article on this topic is by PhD economist Robert Murphy titled, "But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?"

The incentives in a free market are entirely against a corporation trying to enforce "services" through coercion. Imagine, for instance, if Pepsi decided to do tomorrow what every government does: proclaim that you WILL pay for their "services" at whatever price they unilaterally decide, whether you want anything from them or not, and send armed men after you if you refuse. Not only would consumers immediately withdraw their support, but Pepsi would also find no reputable private agency willing to enforce such demands. Competing companies and institutions in a free society would universally oppose such aggression, swiftly isolating any corporation that attempted it.

Just as North Korean defector Yeonmi Park notes in her video "A North Korean Girl's View On Gun Ownership in America," dictatorships and coercive power structures rely entirely on passive compliance. She explains that if even 60% of North Koreans had guns, there would be a revolt and no more dictatorship. In a free society, companies would lack the ideological and practical tools of government to enforce any similar agenda of control, making such power grabs utterly unviable.