One must oppose capitalism in order to be an Anarchist.

Thank you for submitting your Opening Statements, MaesterAemon. These are some intriguing arguments. I did have to take some time determining the best route to take, in regards to my rebuttals. P1: “One must oppose forcefulness to be an anarchist.” I will grant this, as P1 for PRO’s argument is identical to P1 for my argument. P2: “Capitalism and freedom are incompatible”. Negative Liberty Perspective If it is true that people can “voluntarily restrict their own freedom of access to pieces of the world” and also true that this “would lead to some property arrangement or other”, then absentee property ownership can come aboutper people’s voluntary restriction of their own freedoms, which means that wage-labor arrangements can come about. PRO’s own reasoning refutes their conclusion. Inalienable Freedom/Autonomy Perspective (I do have an issue with the definition of autonomy, as it is quite difficult to act without restrictions from political, social, and economic factors. This definition is unrealistic. For example, I might desire to buy a Lexus convertible, however, I do not have the economic backing to do so. Have I lost my autonomy? I will still address this argument, but this definition is highly problematic. Further, Inalienable Freedom has quite a confusing definition. I would like PRO to elaborate in his counter rebuttals.) PRO claims that “wage-labor relations are not as they place one person under the commands of another and no one has the right to sell even part of their liberty”. Not only is there no support offered here, I fail to see how this is connected to inalienable freedom or autonomy. I can choose to do as someone else says, or not. Obviously each of these has consequences, and those might be undesirable, but I have not given away my liberty by simply being in a wage-labor relationship. I still have the ability to act in accordance to my will. However, as I noted above, I might be restricted by things like social or economic factors. I wonder, then, if it can ever be said that we do have autonomy, given that such factors are quite numerous, and frequently present. PRO further claims that “it's clear that wage-labor is wage-slavery insofar as you don't receive all of what you made this implies that you labored at least in part for free,” when one takes LPR into account. However, LPR says nothing of how we are to determine who holds a legitimate claim to something that has been made out of the property of another. If we are speaking of wage labor, “theR39;socioeconomicrelationship between aworkerR39;and anR39;employer, where the worker sells theirlaborR39;under a formal or informalR39;employment contract”, then we have to be aware that one person is providing materials to be worked with, the capitalist, and the other person is working with those materials to create a product. A simple mention of LPR is not enough to substantiate the claim PRO is making here. LPR does not address who rightfully owns the items one makes from the property of another. PRO will have to make this connection before these points can be firm. P3: “Capitalism necessitates the use of force.” (R) Remember the definition of “forcefulness” that I offered in R1. “’Forcefulness’ in the context above means ‘initiation of force’ ". PRO’s argument is invalid when this premise is used. A conditional version of P1 is this: If X requires the initiation of force (P), then an anarchist opposes X (Q), where “x” is an action, system, or similar. PRO’s claim is the capitalism requires the use of force. The argument, then, in symbolic form, is this: If P then Q. R Therefore Q. Which is obviously invalid. The initiation of force and the use of such are not the same thing. Further, PRO claims that “Capitalism is always dependent upon, and propped up by a 'government' “. Simply put, laws need to enforced, otherwise they are not at all binding, but are simply suggestions. Since “anarchy” entails the existence of laws, anarchy must entail the use of force, insofar as laws are only such when they can be enforced, and the only way to enforce a statement is through the use of force. If this is what PRO means by “government”, then a government is necessary for Anarchism, as Anarchism entails the existence of laws, somehow, and laws are only binding when force is used. If the law is not binding, then it is simply a suggestion, as such, the system being discussed is not Anarchy as we have defined it here. CONCLUSION For Premise 2, Point A: PRO’s argument is self-detonating. PRO’s own assertions in this argument contradict the conclusion. For Premise 2, Point B: PRO has not offered sufficient support for the assertions made here. (There are two independent claims with no support) Locke’s Labor Theory of Property says nothing of ownership related to items created from the property of others. One’s liberty is not necessarily sold by working for someone, as you can choose, at your own discretion, to leave. Rarely is this prevented. From Premise 3: In order for statements to be laws, they must have binding power. The only binding power available for statements is force. Force, then, is required for anarchy, as anarchism entails laws. Any form of ownership, if it is to be maintained, requires force to back it up. With that, my Rebuttals are finished. I look forward to PRO’s rebuttals, and hope his counter-rebuttals are of some strength. I think I have provided some pretty strong counter arguments here.