I would argue that if current wealth imbalances are left like they are any attempt at anarcho-capitalism will quickly devolve into a sort of hyper-feudalism. You can't essentially admit that all land/capital was taken illegitimately (by defining current markets as unfree). If the market is to serve as the only/ultimate decision making tool for aggregating choices and preferences, then it makes a huge difference if some people have a lot more of that decision making power.
Who has more decision making power? 1 man with 5 billion dollars, or 6 billion people, each with 1 dollar?
That billionaire has to please those billions of people if he wants to keep (or increase) his fortune.
Keep in mind that during the sort of shake-up that would surround a transition to AnCap (or anything, really), fortunes are made and lost very rapidly. It's extremely unlikely that the balance of monetary or even material distribution would be the same.
That's actually what I based my opinion of 'public property should go to those who use it' on. For the most part, when I say subsidized industries, I mean those like the railways, which can't support themselves. For industries like Lockheed-martin, Yes, they did supply weapons to the Gov't. But when you like to make jet planes, who's going to pay you the most to make jet planes?