I always thought it was goofy where rand redefined capitalism. capitalism is an economic system, and it does not necessarily mean free market either, and it is not a political system.

Regardless, lets pretend free market and capitalism are the same words. Then, by definition, the only political system that is fully an economic system of capitalism is by definition systems of anarcho-capitalism. All present commonly used systems think that in some cases, no matter how limited they are; police, fire, roads, they can force people to contribute wealth, time, and life to it to protect others and for the greater good and are, by definition, socialist - for the greater good.

It is not necessary to set up governments this way. Please note I am not an anarcho capitalist, but I expect most people here not to be able to follow the argument, as it requires actual thinking, inductive, objective from reality, as opposed to rote learning from someone elses book.

the only philosophy of non-voluntarism which you just exposed is I can force my neighbor to do something beyond protecting myself and others which is not initiating force.

rights aren't protected at all by organizations, as they are not alive. They are protected by people. who may organize to do it more effectively in an organization, if that is what they find works.

The dribble that 'if you do not agree with someone you do not understand them', that 'I must agree with a philosophy instead of objective reality', and 'the implied guilt trip and appeal to the masses' is the exact type of immature, non-objective, non reasoning trash I'd expect to find on an open forum as opposed to ones that only are for those using reason and reality - not appeals to authority. I made this objection to the forum when I signed up a year and a half ago.

"The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church."

State government by definition includes the idea of initiation of force - even if it only includes simple things like taxation and requiring citizens to be in or outside it's boundaries - but obviously it is much worse in the real world then that - as sacrificing such a basic moral principle at the start would lead.

Furthermore, any non-volunteer actions like that would by definition affect the economy, and therefore not be a complete separation of government and economy, as economists such as Walter Williams love to point out.

Either volunteerism or anarcho-capitalism would seem to fit Ayn Rand's criteria, but she didn't like anarcho-capitalism.

I don't think she was very consistent on this principle. As I am, I note it.