[Vilo!]

Anarcho-socialists believe in property rights if the people want to voluntarily work in private property. Rights come from consent.

Um, Hate to break it to you hun/bro but, you were actually describing Anarcho-capitalism.

You have it backwards.
Anarcho-socialists argue that private property is a fiction enforced by illegitimate institutions which do not account for the needs and desires of the individuals they affect, and that beyond "personal possession" of immediate goods.
The very notion that one can acquire "PRIVATE" property in a supposed "anarcho" state, and implement "rules" for those in need is no different than a corporation enforcing (by means of selfishness)it on the proletarians.

The best example is probably the Vietnam War, in which a small militia force in a small territory was able to turn back the massive US Military.

If you had any idea how sophisticated these individual militias were in the art of tunneling, and booby trapping, you'd know why they were so affective against the US military.

These vietnamese weren't simply ambushing their foe's from dangling trees.

Mining a whole underground facility with bare limbs and tools, really surprised, and overwhelmed the US forces at the time.

Subsequently; US forces are being schooled on these war tactics, how you discern them, and how to destroy them (cave-in prominent routes)

Ron Paul is not an anarcho-capitalist. He is broadly libertarian and he hasn't got a chance in hell of getting the GOP nomination.

Pass that one by me again?
I thought that too till I opened up a history book.

[Doctor State]

As an ancap I don't feel much of a need to debate my beliefs with others because the world grows more anarcho-capitalist every day. The public sector constantly loses ground to the private sector. People demand more and more rights.

The world is improving rapidly; politics simply doesn't matter like it used to.

[GeneCosta]

I object to your conclusion, although it should be enough to question why you refuse to debate with others. A blossoming market does not imply a victory of capitalism. Markets are not a uniquely capitalist phenomena; individualist anarchists originally identified as socialists in acceptance of markets, but rejecting key features to capitalism, namely the concept of ownership versus use, economic rent, and unlimited accumulation of property. Who is to say we are not heading towards a socialist market, as espoused by Benjamin Tucker? Or, reversely, a mutualist market, as espoused by Pierre Proudhon?

Nothing. Indeed, it seems like that under anarchism capitalism would not occur, and any individualist organization would be classified as socialist by today's standards.

We could likewise point to the growing importance of freeware and piracy and conclude that communism's banner is on the horizon, but clearly one could see the ferocious problems inherit in such a position.

As a historical movement, capitalism has been characterized by the wealthy exercising their liberty over others in the form of government and corporations. I understand Rothbard wants to distinguish himself from this precedent, and that is fine, but his natural rights emphasis is purely fictional. There are no rights to property outside of what one can defend, either through the absence of opposition, or the introduction of coercion.

Ayn Rand rightly contested Rothbard for his theories. In anarchism, the notion of absolute property rights will be scoffed at, as it should. There is no universal theme to property, and the connection between one's own self and their playstation is not as closely linked as the Austrian school would like to presume. If a rogue capitalist decides that he wants to "mix his labor" into a circle around where I sit, he cannot demand that I work for a wage just to escape his grasp.

Well, theoretically he could given a type of enforcement, but most people aren't going to recite Atlas Shrug and uphold the proper Rothbardian line of thought. They'll make sure I can get out free, and they'll probably wreck his property. Likewise, a business owner may have a hard time managing a top-down business overseas when he's constantly struggling with theft and worker sit-ins. The price of defending such property would be so intolerable that he would be better served giving in to the workers' demands. I've heard objections that violating property is un-anarchist, but David Friedman would not (if reasonably consistant) disagree, nor should any ancap, since they believe there is illegitimate property in the form of owning untoiled land.

Capitalism dies with anarchism because people aren't attached to purism. Socialism is much more broad, and much more acceptable to - human nature.