Are you saying that, without the state, large businesses would collapse?

First, that is simply ridiculous. Many of these businesses already own armies and guns. If the state suddenly disappears, without being held high by workers syndicates and a strong workers union with the intent of directly overthrowing these businesses and abolishing capitalism, they would quickly become the state.

When the government weakened in Columbia, those living there weren't met with equality, quite the opposite. Capitalist thugs: drug traders, Coke-a-Cola, etc... quickly formed armies and became the state, kidnapping, murdering, and torturing countless innocents in order to further their own goals as organizations.

Secondly, that wouldn't be a good thing. Many of the modern utilities that we take for granted, such as computers, the Internet, highway systems, etc... require massive organizations to produce and maintain. Small, localized authorities would simply fail to provide the technologies that we've come to enjoy.

What about them? Do they produce their own equipment? Did they build the structures they use themselves? Make each individual brick? Either they are subservient to the companies that commission said work, or the workers that do said work are subservient to them.

Yes, and so did the capitalist. At least workers have some control over the state.

First, this is not generally true, in many (most, even) cases today, the means of production, was simply there, and the capitalist just managed to inherit it.

Further, the same argument can be used to defend the existence of the state and the taxation of its citizens: Where would we be today if the state hadn't claimed and protected the land and built the infrastructure that we depend on?

Both conclusions take the same faulty axiom: That authoritarianism is necessarily constructive, and that production can only occur where said production is centrally planned, either by capitalists or bureaucrats.

In reality, it is the workers who do the work. The workers, all of them collectively, power production, and the workers, again, collectively, built the means of production. The capitalist isn't a bricklayer, or an engineer, or a mechanic, the capitalist uses her wealth to exploit those workers into building the means of production for her.

You make it sound as if the industrial revolution sprung forth from a completely egalitarian society, where mutualism was the law of the land. This is simply not true- just years before organized industry we had revolts, from the, then middle class, bourgeoisie, against the global aristocracies; and below them both, the soon to become proletariat, peasantry. The capitalists were never existing within an equal space with the workers, before the revolts, they were between the peasantry and the aristocracy, and afterwards they were kept high above the proletariat as much of the wealth that they took back from the aristocrats belonged to the proles.

Very occasionally a new capitalist will rise up, but just the fact that this occurs does not conflict with the above paragraph. The question of where this capitalist's wealth comes from is still a very pertinent question. What possible contribution can one person make that would cause them to be worth hundreds, thousands, even millions more than another individual? Do you know anyone with the strength of a million average men? The intelligence? If capitalists were truly legitimate, we would be talking about a world of super-heroes, not one of real people. And what of the people who contribute the same amount, but fail, for arbitrary reasons? What could be called the first actual computers were invented, independently by three different people at relatively similar times. Despite contributing what was more or less the largest technological wonder created by an individual in human history, all of them were shafted, left relatively poor, and didn't achieve fame, even within their field, until after their death, if they achieved fame at all.

Were they not worth as much as man number 1213454 to apply derivation to blind investments, and make out well?

Which ones, specifically, for telcos? I'm not aware of any. I do know that certain states (teritories within the US, but probably elsewhere as well) will actually give you money if you decide to start a telco, as the bar for entry is so high, and the market is so monopolized. Go move to Alabama and tell the state that you want to start a high speed telco. With a bit of start-up cash (In other words, more money than most people will make in their lifetimes.) I am sure they will be delighted to throw money at you.

Capitalism is a system of private ownership of the means of production. Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. The two terms are antonyms.

What does contracting have to do with claiming ownership of the means of production?

Why don't you go and start your own telco today?

Sure, in a free-market, perhaps, at least initially, but not in an 'anarchist' capitalist society which is, by definition, a hierarchal model.

An 'anarchist' capitalist should be defending capitalism, not free-markets, don't you think?

It would certainly still be a problem, as you still have private ownership of the means of production. One can't simply go and start a telco, and it's not because of restricting laws put in place by the state; it's because no one who doesn't already own the means to push bandwidth down the backbone has the ability to gain that means, so a capitalist model is an inherently hierarchical model, one in which people are still forced to work for capitalists.

Regardless, I was responding to a philosophical question regarding legitimacy, not the question of feasibility.

No matter how you try to spin it, private ownership of the means of production is a process wherein a person is forced to hand over the product of their labor against their will to an institution that they never chose to have a relationship with.

Some will argue that you agree to surrender your labor value (and engage in a relationship with the owner) by choosing to use the means of production that the capitalist has claimed, but that begs the question - what gives the capitalist the right to preside over its claimed means of production? Despite centuries of mental masturbation, philosophers have not been able to provide a conclusive answer, and anarchism is the default position.

:3