Anarchism and capitalism are incompatible.

Second Round Arguments:I. Anarchism is more than just anti-statism.Anarchism is the questioning vertical hierarchy (rulerships) and their claim to a monopoly on the use of violence. If an authority cannot meet it's burden of proof (that is, to meet the needs of all those who it has authority over), this system is abolished in favor non-hierarchical, free associations without rulers.If a system accepts rulers or persons which have dominion over others (such as capitalism does) and can only legitimize itself by enforcing violence or coercion over those which it rules, then that system would be abolished in favor of non-hierarchical, free associations.II. The capitalist and the worker.My opponent assumes that all worker-capitalist relations are built on a mutually beneficial relationship, and is simply a market exchange. However, this is false. The private ownership of the means of production is predicated on violent exclusion to keep workers from producing for themselves and their communities. If workers can produce for themselves, why would they work for a capitalist who only seeks to profit off of surplus labor? The worker-capitalist reltionship is built off of coercion, which can be percieved as a form of violence, which I will get to later. This coercion is due to the fact that a worker must either work for a capitalist, or be deprived fo their means of survival. Workers must work to produce goods in exchange for a wage The wages that the workers are given is not based in equity of labor time. Rather, it is a level that maintains the worker's survival and allows them to keep working.III. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't abolish the state's monopoly on violence.The state can be defined as having three major characteristics (as defined by Max Weber[1]):1. A monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.2. An area over which this monopoly is enforced.3. A highly centralized authority, administrative body, or rulership (government) which lays claim to the use of this violence.Within a capitalist society, this concept of having a 'state' wouldn't be abolished. On the contrary, this concept would only be privatized. A piece of property (land) would be defined as being a geographic area, with the 'owner' as the administrative body or ruler which lays claim to a monopoly of violence over this given area. This itself fits the deifnition of a state. Which is one of the main targets of anarchist theory. Thus meaning, capitalism is not compatible with anarchism.If I were a worker on the piece of land owned by person A, person A would act as my ruler over that piece of land. Since that land is the property of person A, and they can legitimately enforce violence over it. This still entails that there are rulers within an anarcho-capitalist society. Only being decentralized, but rulers nonetheless. Thus meaning that it is not an anarchist system. IV. The non-aggression principle does not legitimize capitalism.My opponent is invoking the non-aggression principle into their arguments. I will now show as to why the non-aggression principle does not legitimize capitalist or private ownership of property.The non-aggression principle holds that the initiation of force or violence (against a person or their justly acquired property) is inherently immoral. One common argument to support a capitalist mode of production, is that socialist expropriation of property is theft. This argument is as follows:P1) Theft is the forceful taking of one's justly acquired property.P2) Expropriation is the compulsory taking of a capitalist's private property, by the workers.C) Expropriation is a form of theft.However, this position only holds if all capitalist private property is justly acquired. So, the argument can be restructured as follows:P1) Theft is the forceful taking of one's justly acquired property.P2) All capitalist private property is justly acquired.P3) Expropriation is the compulsory taking of a capitalist's private property, by the workers.C) Expropriation is a form of theft.However, this position depends on whether P2 is a true statement. Which can be answered in the negative. Nearly every patch of land on earth has been acquired unjustly (through the initiation of force or violence). This land was then sold and purchased on the market until it reached it's current owners. Wage slavery is the use of coercion (a form of violence, initiated by the capitalist) to keep workers subservient to wages that are equitable to their labor time. Workers should then be able to act in retaliation to this coercion (as anarchy is a system that opposes systems of oppression and coercion/violence). Private property can also be seen as not legitimate through the labor theory of property (which holds that labor creates ownership). Because of this labor theory of property, we can hold that no one has the right to own land (as it is not man-made). Workers could also own the means of production, as they are the labor force within a production facility. Thus, expropriation could be seen as a means of taking back justly acquired property.Thus, the non-aggression principle does not legitimize capitalism, nor does it coincide conflict between anarchism and capitalism. Since the argument that supports capitalism through the NAP is dependent on the false presumption that all private property is justly acquired.Conclusion: P1) Anarchism is the demolition of authority/rulerships which rests upon the use of violence or force to legitimize itself.P2) The state and capitalism/private ownership of property both rest upon rulerships which must use violence or force to maintain themselves.C) Anarchism is not compatible with capitalism.Sources:1- http://en.wikipedia.org...