Capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production wouldn’t require anarchy. Nationalization is certainly off limits, but a government that exists s

Capitalism as the private ownership of the means of production wouldn’t require anarchy. Nationalization is certainly off limits, but a government that exists solely to maintain a capitalist status quo could still exist. In that case, we could imagine that advocates for a pure capitalism would want the abolition of social services, a flat (if any) tax, the smallest military necessary to prevent invasion, and so on. I’d argue this looks quite similar to the platforms of republicans furthest to the economic right, eg rand paul. The other side’s extremists, ie those who would call for centralized or public ownership of industry, have practically no mainstream political relevance. The closest you’ll get at the federal level are advocates for the nordic model. This unbalanced setup is very unsurprising if you consider that the overton window centers around normalcy, and the most normal perspective in America is a predominantly capitalist system with some labor protections, taxes, and unemployment tacked on. All of this is unnecessary to mention, however, because you can easily find people arguing, all the time, that the invisible hand naturally prioritizes the desires of customers. This is such a default position that I’m pretty sure I was actually taught that in school (Mississippi to be fair).