Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible.

So, we are in Round 3. This is becoming a pretty interesting debate. Now I shall present my rebuttals. I shall list each of your points, and then offer a few objections The terms “private ownership” and “common ownership” with, from here on, contain an assumed “of the means of production”, to save character space. I. Addressing "Capitalism promotes a mode of production that is centrally planned." This claim is only true if the Circular Flow Diagram is false. The Circular Flow Diagram [1] describes the way in which firms (businesses) interact with households (people/workers). There are two (2) markets: The Factor Market and the Goods/Services Market. Households contribute to the Factor Market, and take from the Goods/Services Market. Firms contribute to the Goods/Services market, and take from the Factor market. By contributing to the Factor Market, and having firms take from the Factor Market, households earn income. Some households earn less income than others, but they earn income nonetheless. Also, by contributing to the Goods/Services Market, and having households take from the Factor Market, firms earn income. So, each is dependent on the other. If households don’t buy, firms don’t earn revenue. If firms don’t pay for labor, households don’t earn wages. If “rulership” is predicated on dependence, it would seem that each rules the other. As such, there is no particular class which rules another particular class, since each rules the other. II. Addressing "Capitalism leads to the creation of a states." This point seems to require the first point to be true, and I have already addressed the issues with Point One (I). However, I’ll provide some objections here as well. I will address the paragraphs by their central themes: Opposing Interests and Free-Market Instability. (A) Opposing Interests Given that a State requires taxes to exist, and taxes are a method of taking income and/or capital goods, it’d seem to me that the capitalist is in the same position either way, and has no real reason to support the existence of a State which will use force to take their income and capital goods. The capitalist, then, is better off simply hiring a security company and some legal firm so that they will have entities who are responsible for redress of grievances, rather than having an institution which will take her income and capital. Even if it is true that capitalists have an interest in keeping their capital goods, it would not mean they would create a State. If the issue is maintaining ownership of capital goods, a State is surely the last thing the capitalist would choose, as the State only exists if it can take taxes and take and hold capital goods, which means the capitalist must lose income and capital goods. (B) Free-Market Instability The most telling statement from this portion of the contention is: “Thus, the capitalist class will create a state that regulates the free market so that large corporations can maintain their monopoly”. Not all capitalists approve of or support corporations, let alone own or operate them. So, the position that capitalists will want a State to regulate the free market only works in so far as those who own large corporations and want monopolies are also capitalists. However, a capitalist is any person who controls the means of production. It is not particularly difficult to see that this contention rests very heavily on a misunderstanding of what a “capitalist” is. For example, are we to believe that a mom-and-pop shop owner wants more regulations? Perhaps a higher minimum wage or a higher quality requirement for products? The shop owner is a capitalist, after all. Profit is [Revenue-Expenses]. Certain industries have particular expenses and particular revenues, but this is the basic equation. Regulations are part of expenses, and, all else equal, if Expenses rise, profit must fall, and if profit must fall, income will fall as will. But if income falls due to regulation, it cannot be the case that all capitalists want more regulations, as this would entail all capitalists wanting less profit; but, given very basic economic truths, if a company is not making money, it can no longer operate. [5] All of this with the understanding that it might not be true when income rises or other expenses fall. [2] III. Addressing "Rothbard's thoughts on anarchism and capitalism." I find it odd that Chimera chooses to use Rothbard, especially considering Rothbard’s article has a very obvious minarchist stance. “Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: “’Well, I believe in a limited government, the government being limited to the defense of the person or property or the individual against invasion by force or fraud.’” Being in support any kind or size of government is not anarchism. This contention is an obvious example of quote-mining, also known as “Contextomy”. [3] Not only that, but a “libertarian” is not necessarily an anarchist. As Rothbard states “…Well, I believe in a limited government…” [Emphasis in original]. So, it would seem to me that this contention is misguided; it rests upon a very fatal misunderstanding of anarchy and libertarianism. The libertarian might be justified in believing government is necessary for protecting the individual and their property, as well as adjudicating instances where the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle is violated. Anarchy, on the other hand, does not entail collectivism or communism. For this contention to work, both of these must not be the case. Part of Rothbard’s essay discussed the historical collectivist/communist theme of anarchy. He states “Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question ‘are libertarians anarchists?’ must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative”, after discussing what he terms “left-anarchism”. Left-anarchism is the form of anarchism that “attacks private property just as vigorously as it attacks the State”. Much as the various forms of anarchism are lumped together, so too are the various forms of “left-anarchism” lumped together and addressed under the banner of “anarcho-capitalism”. Given the historical nature of anarchism, etymologically speaking, a person does not have sound grounding in using “anarchist” to refer to someone who opposes Statism and supports private property, as the historically dominant position has been collectivist/communist anarchy. However, it would seem that this is simply arguing that opposing rulers is not sufficient for the term “anarchist”, despite the fact that our definition only requires this. Perhaps the term “anti-statist” or “anti-archist” might be more appropriate, as it is true that “anarchism” entails a left-wing stance when looking at the historically dominant forms of anarchism. However, the words would still entail “belief in opposition to rulers”, as such, for this debate, the term “anarchist” will suffice. For this contention to work, “anarchy” must be re-defined to include collectivism and/or communism. This is quite an underhanded tactic, as we have already agreed upon a definition. Conclusion I look forward to your counter-rebuttals, Chimera. The rebuttals you have provided have some strength to them. [1] http://www.macrobasics.com...[2] http://newbusinessplaybook.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...