I am an libertarian, borderline anarcho-capitalist. I disagree with your above statement. Free markets require private property ownerhsip, which is the antithesis of socialism's concept of "collective" property ownership. Socialism cannot create anything new, it merely loots assets from their rightful owers.

Show me a socialist country where "collective" property ownership was anything other than ownership by the elite ruling class. The workers never wind up "owning" anything and instead become slaves to the state. Socialism does not allow a person to freely sell his labor. It is slavery. If your force me to work without monetary compensation you have stolen my labor.

I do not agree with your interposition of the terms "socialism" and "anarchism." Socialism by definition involves a form of control over people. Anarchism is the absence of any form of governmental control.

The reason why I am not a full-fledged anarcho-capitalist is because you need a government to protect and enforce private property rights in order for free markets to work. If you had true anarchy (the absence of any government, laws, etc.) property ownership would be determined by brute force. Whomever could hire the biggest army could take your property at will. You wind up with a few huge syndicates instead a multitude of small, privately-owned businesses competing with each other. (Coincidentally, I do not for one second labor under the delusion that the US of A is a free market economy. The failure to enforce anti-trust laws has resulted in oligargical rivalry by a few large corporations in every major industry, rather than atomistic free-market competition).