"..most people claiming to be "anarchists" do not understand
the nature of man."

from the outset we can see that this person has a sexist analysis of things.

Anarchism and capitalism simply do not go together. Capitalism is marked by
hierarchy, by the power of the wealthy over the working class. Anarchism developed
as a movement and set of ideas in *opposition* to the bloody thing!

Only someone ignorant of anarchism and its history could claim otherwise (i.e.
"anarcho"-capitalists!). Every anarchist agrees that "property is theft"!

Anyways, as far as the "self-ownership" argument goes, here is something from
"An Anarchist FAQ" on the matter. Section F of that FAQ (which can be found
at  http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html) goes into why "anarcho"-capitalism
is not and can never be considered as anarchist.

B.4.2 Is capitalism based on self-ownership?

Murray Rothbard, a leading "libertarian" capitalist, claims that capitalism
is based on the "basic axiom" of "the right to self-ownership." This "axiom"
is defined as "the absolute right of each man [sic]. . .to control [his or
her] body free of coercive interference. Since each individual must think,
learn, value, and choose his or her ends and means in order to survive and
flourish, the right to self-ownership gives man [sic] the right to perform
these vital activities without being hampered by coercive molestation."
[_For a New Liberty_, pp. 26-27]

So far, so good. However, we reach a problem once we consider private
property. As Ayn Rand, another ideologue for "free market" capitalism argued,
"there can be no such thing as the right to unrestricted freedom of speech
(or of action) on someone else's property." [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_,
p. 258] Or, as is commonly said by capitalist owners, "I don't pay you to
*think.*"

Similarly, capitalists don't pay their employees to perform the other "vital
activities" listed by Rothbard (learning, valuing, choosing ends and means)
-- unless, of course, the firm requires that workers undertake such activities
in the interests of company profits. Otherwise, workers can rest assured that
any efforts to engage in such "vital activities" on company time *will* be
"hampered" by "coercive molestation." Therefore wage labour (the basis of
capitalism) in practice *denies* the rights associated with "self-ownership,"
thus alienating the individual from his or her basic rights. Or as Michael
Bakunin expresses it, "the worker sells his person and his liberty for a
given time" under capitalism.

In a society of relative equals, "private property" would not be a source
of power. For example, you would still be able to fling a drunk out of
your home. But in a system based on wage labour (i.e. capitalism),
private property is a different thing altogether, becoming a source of
*institutionalised* power and coercive authority through hierarchy. As
Noam Chomsky writes, capitalism is based on "a *particular form* of
authoritarian control. Namely, the kind that comes through private
ownership and control, which is an *extremely* rigid system of
domination." When "property" is purely what you, as an individual, use
(i.e. *possession*) it is not a source of power. In capitalism, however,
"property" rights no longer coincide with *use* rights, and so they become
a *denial* of freedom and a source of authority and power over the
individual. Little wonder that Proudhon labelled property as "theft."

As we've seen in the discussion of hierarchy (section A.2.8 and B.1), all
forms of authoritarian control depend on "coercive molestation" -- i.e.
the use or threat of sanctions. This is definitely the case in company
hierarchies under capitalism. Bob Black describes the authoritarian
nature of capitalism as follows: "[T]he place where [adults] pass the
most time and submit to the closest control is at work. Thus . . . it's
apparent that the source of the greatest direct duress experienced by the
ordinary adult is *not* the state but rather the business that employs
him. Your foreman or supervisor gives you more or-else orders in a week
than the police do in a decade."

We have already noted the objection that people can leave their jobs,
which just amounts to saying "love it or leave it!" and does not address
the issue at hand. Needless to say, the vast majority of the population
cannot avoid wage labour. Far from being based on the "right to
self-ownership," then, capitalism denies it, alienating the individual
from such basic rights as free speech, independent thought, and
self-management of one's own activity, which individuals have to *give up*
when they are employed. But since these rights, according to Rothbard,
are the products of humans *as* humans, wage labour alienates them from
themselves, exactly as it does the individual's labour power and
creativity.

To quote Chomsky again, "people can survive, [only] by renting themselves
to it [capitalist authority], and basically in no other way. . . ." You do
not sell your skills, as these skills are *part* of you. Instead, what
you have to sell is your *time*, your labour power, and so *yourself.*
Thus under wage labour, rights of "self-ownership" are always placed below
property rights, the only "right" being left to you is that of finding
another job (although even this right is denied in some countries if the
employee owes the company money).

So, contrary to Rothbard's claim, capitalism actually alienates the right
to self-ownership because of the authoritarian structure of the workplace,
which derives from private property. If we desire real self-ownership,
we cannot renounce it for most of our adult lives by becoming wage
slaves. Only workers' self-management of production, not capitalism, can
make self-ownership a reality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
see  http://www.anarchistfaq.org for more details on what real anarchism is about.