Personally, I think we'll see something different in the future than what we currently have. People have this outdated notion that an entire geographical region must be under the same laws and restrictions, when it's clear that certain communities have entirely different cultural views, and Government doesn't work because of these heterogeneous populations get into voting wars, and usually nothing good ever comes from it.

I think in the future, we'll see something entirely different, a Federation of sorts. I'm personally of the ancap and agorist persuasion, but I don't think we'll ever see either of these philosophies applied to an actual large geographical area, like the United States. Instead, the Governing system will be a loose Federation of communities/states, where the form of Government is based on tradition (culture) and there will be the possibility of dispute resolution and everything else to settle potential problems. A good example is California; under this sort of Federation type system, California would be entirely free to become a robust social democracy/welfare state, and it won't drag everyone else down. I guess you could kind of say it's similar to the Articles of Confederation, but more modern. This sort of system allows a Government of any flavor, and because there isn't a huge central Government, the propensity towards conflict would be minimized. Issues would still arise, but I think this is the most consistent form of 'Government' as it were (in reality, it's merely  a lack of centralization), and is honestly the only way to keep consistent with the NAP that many libertarians claim to support.

Is it not coercive to force people to live under 'anarchy' if they don't want to, the same way it's coercive to force me to live under a fascist social democracy? Libertarians fail to make this distinction, they just assume everyone will go along with their plan.