I would like to remind all of you reblogging my post and twisting my words (in some cases outright modifying them) that I am not an anarcho-capitalist. However, the etymology of anarchism (“without rulers”) does not preclude hierarchical employer-employee relationships. The free market to which an-caps refer would likely result in much more equality between employers and employees. I don’t agree with using the word capitalism to refer to market-based anarchism, but those of you who don’t think the so-called anarcho-capitalists are anarchists at all would do well to look into what they actually mean when they use capitalism to describe their beliefs.
It does preclude employer-employee relationships under a capitalist system, because the employer owns the means of production and the employee is a wage slave. They may not be a ruler in such a traditional sense, but they still have the function of governance over employees. ”More” equality is still not equality.
Capitalism, in which the means of production are owned by a ruling elite (the bourgeoisie) and worked upon by the disenfranchised masses (the proletariat). Based on the requirement of property relations. I’d much rather call “anarcho-capitalists” right-libertarians or free-market capitalists, or basically something that doesn’t mean they start to think they’re chums with the folks who want to smash the bourgeois state.