Capitalism is “the private ownership of the means of production.” Does any parsing of that definition equate capitalism with statism? Let’ see. Statism is the doctrine that a person or group of persons may justifiably monopolize the provision of law and order, that is, be allowed to use coercion to prevent and/or regulate the provision of law and order (of anything) by others within a defined territorial boundary. It follows that such a monopoly would give “the state” immunity from being subject to legal disputes within its territory (ie. sovereign immunity). Does the private ownership of the means of production grant owners either monopoly seller privilege or sovereign immunity? I don’t see how. The state may grant capitalists these kinds of privileges, but that is the prerogative of statists, not of capitalists qua capitalists. And that’s today’s two cents.