> If an exchange is genuinely voluntary, it leaves both parties better off by definition.

Libertarians often compare taxation to theft (and believe me, I'm sympathetic). But by that yardstick, taxation is voluntary: I have a choice between the costs and benefits of government, versus the transaction cost of leaving for another country, versus the risk of being thrown into a cage. I make my "choice", and both I and the government "benefit".

Meanwhile, if I need a certain drug to survive, and the provider of that drug charges $1000/month, we both benefit through that exchange, but it's hardly a choice on my part. Even if that drug could not have existed without the incentive of future rent-seeking on their part, I still have effectively zero negotiating leverage in that business relationship, and I would say it's exactly as "voluntary" as the taxation example above.

Look at it in terms of the Ultimatum Game [1]. If the 2nd party is offered only $1 from the 1st party's $20, they can choose to defect and spoil the benefit for both, which gives them bargaining power. But if the 2nd party is in deep poverty, this will effectively never happen, and if the 1st party knows this, they will always offer $1. Better than nothing? Sure, I guess. But realities of biology and survival render any lofty ideals of free will moot.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

> But again, your property is your property, and you have the right to defend it regardless of whether a State exists.

In practice, no one defends their own property. If the only force preserving your land is you and your shotgun, ten of your neighbors might use their shotguns to disagree. It is through some combination of explicit law and implicit social contract for them to not do so, either soft-enforced in culture or hard-enforced by violence, that makes it possible for you to own and successfully defend your land. Possession might be 9/10ths of the law, but that last 1/10th makes a big difference.

> Capitalism is not a "system".

First, agreed on crony capitalism. That's a shit sandwich for everyone.

However, just because a system is emergent rather than engineered, does not mean it is not a system. Is the rainforest not a system? Or the orbital mechanics of the earth, the sun and the moon?

Moreover, in reality, markets are always affected by issues of public policy (and not deciding or doing nothing is still a decision):

- How are disputes managed, and what are the costs? Are you on your own for legal fees, or must the loser pay for the winner's costs? If not, do you tolerate SLAPP suits? [2]

- Where are the exact lines drawn around property? Can I prevent airplanes from flying over my land, if so, how high up? Can I give my cows as many antibiotics as I want, even if that weakens their effectiveness in the greater microbial ecosystem? Can I dump radioactive waste, which does not touch my neighbor's land, but which will gradually leak radiation for millions of years after my death?

- Intellectual property: how is it defined and enforced? (Good luck defending a copyright with a shotgun.) How long do copyrights last? Are there patents, and who decides what's patent-worthy? There is obviously a high moral hazard for crony capitalism here, but it is difficult to capitalize on intellectual and creative output without rules governing IP.

You probably have answers for these issues. They might be very good answers. But the point is that capitalism does not emerge perfectly formed from nature: while it is powered by emergent and distributed forces, it is always going to be shaped by culture and law and history, and there are a plethora of potential capitalist systems.

To re-iterate, I'm not arguing against capitalism; I do not dispute that markets create wealth. I'm saying that, at best, "pure" libertarian capitalism is an implementation of negative rights [3], and that this is a far cry from the narrative of calling all transactions "voluntary". Even if all forms of state solutions are worse (they might be), people under immediate pressures of life and death do not effectively have any choice, any more than they do against direct state violence.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publi...

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights