Is that a problem or something? Even under the state, municipal governments tend to be better/less destructive than at the provincial/national level. From personal observation and what little literature I've read so far (so if I'm mistaken please say so), it appears that private corporations tend to function better than publically traded ones. Largely because there's a difference between owners who actively manage their stake in a business and investors who only care about diversifying their portfolio and so let their executives run wild. Proximity of ownership is a good thing.

The usufructory property crowed says that ownership should not be seperate from use. I say ownership should not be seperated from management. You're still managing your money when you loan it. You're still managing a building half a world away if you're renting it out. And if you stop managing, well, property abandonment is a thing.

In fact this is why private property is superior to state or collective property norms, because it's less absentee than the alternatives. Even a thousand miles is less alienating than a ten-story beaureaucracy or a hundred-man mob.

I don't think Big Business would go away under an anarcho-capitalist system. I don't even agree that big businesses would be fewer or weaker than they are now. Or even that that would be neccesarily desirable. Remember that the biggest businesses already operate under polycentric systems of sorts. What I expect though is that if state coercion could be bypassed by consumers and entrepreneurs, Big Business would be vulnerable. Vulnerable to failure, vulnerable to competition, vulnerable to natural selection.

Of course the whole key is that "bypassing state coercion" bit, isn't it.