Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

2nd Rebuttal:I. The suffix '-archy' is directly derived from the suffix '-arkhe'. Even then, the wiktionary link you provided states that '-archy' means 'form of government or rule'. 'Rule' implies that there is hierarchy that isn't strictly confined to the state.[1] You also claim that 'anarchy' would allow for leaders and leadership. However, when if we look into the same wiktionary link you provided, it states that the suffix '-archy' is derived from the ancient greek term arkhos, which means leader. Since the term 'an-' means without, and '-archy' is derived from the term for leader. Then there are no leaders in an anarchy, thus your claim is false.[1]II. I was by no means commiting an 'Ad Populum'. The problem is, anarchism has always been an anti-capitalist movement. Saying that you can change that into a capitalist movement is like saying that communism has the capability to be free market. Proudhon, who is really the creator and father of the entire ideology, famously stated that 'Property is theft' (referring to private ownership of the means of production).It isn't an Ad Populum if I am reffering as to how anarchism has historically been defined, which is as an anti-capitalist movement. Anti-capitalist ideologies can't just start supporting something they have been diametrically opposed to for decades, if not centuries.III. I don't understand what 'natural' law has to do with this. Many different ideologies and religious institutions have used the concept of 'natural' law to help support their ideology. But such assertions are not real arguments. All ethical code is subjective. Saying that the laws that your ideology purports are 'natural' laws implies that they are like the laws of gravity.Market forces are not 'natural' forces. They are 'social' forces. Saying they are 'natural' elevates them to a metaphysical level.Law needs to be backed by violence and force in order to deliver 'punishment' or 'justice' to a 'perptrator'. What gives someone authority to deliver such?I also don't understand why you are attempting to use Emma Goldman as a means to justify capitalism within anarchism, when Goldman herself was openly anti-capitalist (and an anarcho-communist).“In modern capitalism economic exploitation rather than political oppression is the real enemy of the people.”[]IV. You say that everyone is a capitalist, which is an innumerably false statement. The term 'capitalist' implies that they have ownership of a certain means of production. Not everyone owns a factory or farm or land and is able to produce for themselves. Much of these means of production are owned by wealthy corporations, not by the common man.Also, as for wage-slavery, one becomes a wage-slave since they can't afford to buy certain essential products (such as food) since they are given out wages that can barely afford crumbs. Now, this isn't very prevalent in society today, but when the United States once pursued more laissez-faire (not saying this is your ideal 'pure' capitalism, but bear with me) policies this was very prevalent. People couldn't just 'find a new employer' because either, a) there weren't any real competitors in the area that could afford to pay higher wages, or b) capitalists would use social institutions and hierarchy, as well as their economic power, to intimidate and threaten employees to stay.V. Rothbard founded 'anarcho'-capitalism in 1949-1950, that article was written by Rothbard in the mid 1950's under a pseudonym of his. He most likely wanted to write about such, but not undermine the beliefs he had already expounded. In fact, that article was never published.[3][4]VI. Conditions have definitetly improved for the working class, at least, in the West that is. You can hardly say that the sweatshop worker in Asia or Latin America has the same rights as a worker in the America or Europe.I also don't understand why you brought Marx or even Marxism into this debate. He has practically nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism.In fact, if anything, socialist philosophers like Marx empowered workers with knowledge to fight against the laissez-faire practices during the Industrial Revolution and the Gilded Age. Capitalism itself didn't do this, it was entirely caused by the actions of workers who didn't want to be oppressed and treated like machines.Saying that the classes will not have conflict with one another, and that all will have an equal and fair chance to participate in the market based entirely on skill is ahistorical. Some people will not work at all to gain their wealth, such as inheritors of wealthy families. Others will never be able to get out of an endless cycle of poverty, since whatever corporation or business that works them will see it more profitable to keep them in such a cycle.People like Milton Friedman were writing during a time when wealth inequality was incredibly less pronounced in the United States. There was a post-war boom, and many people had more equal chances with the rich. However, people like Friedman thought it was just the magical properties of capitalism.As for your conclusion, I find it amusing that your say that the anarchism that anarcho-communists expound is 'not the true anarchism'. Which is really a 'no true Scotsman'. Even then, the definition that anarcho-communists use is the definition of anarchism that was used by Goldman (who, again, was an anarcho-communist).Also, anarcho-socialism is not putting the means of production into the hands of the state. There is no hierarchy in any form of anarchism. In anarcho-socialism, the means of production are put into the hands of those who actually work during the labor process, and are democratically controlled. As opposed to the central planning that is inherent in capitalism.In conclusion, the premise still stands that:1) Anarchism is (and will be in this debate) defined as: opposition to authority and hierarchy.2) Capitalism is centered around hierarchy.3) Meaning, anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.4) Thus, 'anarcho'-capitalism (or capitalism without a state, as they define it) is not anarchist.This has been a great debate, I hope everything is fair in the voting process.Also, sorry for any mispelling I wrote this quite quickly. Sources:1-http://en.wiktionary.org...2-http://www.goodreads.com...3-http://en.wikipedia.org...4- http://mises.org...