The economic dependency that the laborer has on capitalists (even this is a false dichotomy, as most people are both at the same time) stems from the nature of time preference, and the laborers higher demand for present goods. To maximize his fulfillment, the laborer needs money now, while the capitalist has it but needs more later. The capitalist only earns interest on the advance he provides, and the more capitalists the lower that interest will be. (The capitalist-entrepreneur earns profits or takes losses from that interest base based on the uncertainty of the later sale of future goods that he bought previously with the advance of present goods.) In a free market, without state intervention, the laborer would earn the discounted marginal value productivity – what it is expected ex ante he could get from selling the additional product he helps the firm create, discounted at the rate of interest.

So, market anarchism, as defined here, actually is in some error. Ending the state would in fact mean that there are choices besides working for someone else and starving. But they would often still be inferior monetarily, due to the lack of ability to afford the capital goods on the market.