I am going to point to a problem with capitalism and the Non Aggression Principle(NAP). I am going to point to a simple situation that comes from this. The NAP is an idea many libertarians and anarchists build their philosophy upon. It is an idea stemming from Ayn Rand who was a capitalist and abhorred anarchism. It was taken to another level by Murray Rothbard who painted a picture of stateless capitalism. The NAP states that it is wrong to initiate force upon a person or their property. In this property is perceived as an extension of the person. Property is often perceived as a synonym for liberty. Yes, property can be liberty but liberty is not property. Companies are also considered property based on investment, so the capitalist concept of property is ownership of the collective.
The non-initiation of force is something I support. The concept I do not support is that it is justifiable to defend property as dominion with violence.
The situation that divides
The Business owner sit in his office watching the workers down on the manufacturing floor. The boss makes one dollar a day for every worker producing on the floor. Each worker makes one dollar a day also. There are one hundred workers. This means the boss makes 100 dollars a day or five hundred in a work week while the workers make one dollar a day or five dollars in a week. The workers decide they want to keep all the profit they make. The workers claim control of the means of production so they can keep their two dollars a day.
The dividing line is this. The definition of property by the capitalist and the definition of initiation of force the very act of claiming the product of their labor is considered the initiation of force. The capitalist is now justified in the use of force to maintain dominion and control of the working collective he maintains power over. This is property as theft. This is why a state exists, to insure the capitalist maintains property of this sort. This is property as theft, property as dominion and property from a state or a private institution that can take the place of the state.
I am more inclined to support the worker ownership of the means of production, because the workers can claim the full product of their labor. With an authority over a collective we see rulers claiming the product of the workers labor. The capitalist needs the state so that he can continue to claim the product of the workers labor.