Anarcho-Capitalism deters state formation

Look at the world.
There's no one world government, the default is anarchy. There has never been a single entity that was in control of the entire world let alone be able to sustain it.

Under a more serious consideration, we see that in order for a central aggressive entity to emerge under Anarcho-Capitalism, they would need to have everyone else in their pockets first.
However, this is not an easy task since their is no money-printer, single army to control and other centralized organisations in which the would-be aggressor can utilize/infiltrate and take over. This would have to be done through actual deals with an actual cost.

This alone shows how far-fetched this idea is, since buying up all your competition has an actual cost. Once 'bought', these other entities now have the money/resources necessary to defend themselves while the hopeful aggressor has lost this money in these transactions.

This is a stark difference to modern states who already possess the monopoly on violence within their own borders and can legislate by fiat whatever they like.
A real business has no such ability and is left to foot its own bills for its own shenanigans.
Thus making the formation of this would-be aggressor counter productive to its own cause as its attempt to strengthen its position necessitates that it strengthens others.

Other considerations would be the diseconomies of scale, as this would-be aggressor 'eats up' other business, they become less efficient, leaving room in the market for other smaller, more agile, more efficient businesses to emerge and take up some market share thus affecting the profits of the would-be aggressor, in short competition.

Furthermore, why would any rational business want to take on unwanted risks that they have to pay for? This is the key difference as to why states engage in wars/territorial expansions etc, as they answer to no one, they tax, they print money and there is no objection.
A business, however, is funded by its customers, so if business A wants to war with business B just for the hell of it, customers of business A can support/oppose business A's efforts and are more likely to switch allegiances if war efforts impacts business A's goods/services. This would leave business A in a self-imposed risky situation where they can lose out entirely in the market.

Though theoretically possible, the realistic odds are far too low to be considered a real threat or serious critique of Anarcho-Capitalism since a state is the status quo we live in.