For what it is worth, there is also some disagreement on the tern "slavery".
Some here are using it inclusively to also cover "entry level employees".

There's the rub.  We lack that common understanding.

Slavery begins with theft/kidnapping/war, and can only be perpetuated by ignoring that theft/kidnapping/war by the governing authority and the prevailing coercive forces.
So is the capitalism as an economic theory the culprit, or is it the morays and governing authority that are the failure points?

Its fine to say that capitalism doesn't solve the problem of slavery.  It is quite another to say that slavery is integral to capitalism.
Capitalism also doesn't solve many other problems.

"Capitalism" as an economic term has been bastardized and inclusively attached to the governments that have fostered it, it has accrued baggage by associations which (I'd aver) are not inherent to capitalism.  And you'd disagree.  Thus we lack this common understanding of the word.

Perhaps the loss of meaning stems from including the "means-of-destruction/coercion" in the "means-of-production"?  Typically the monopoly on the means of destruction rests with the state.

Seems they do.
http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/nsa-outlines-steps-to-reduce-leaks-a-5843

Selling is also buying by someone else.

Can you clarify the problem you are seeking to solve, that is not already solved by the free market, with the proposed structure?

6pJFXgRjgAhwsZdYGJjprXNKkrr1gQJfcw

Don't hide them in the mattress, they feel great in the pillow.

Birds of a feather, fly together

Even so, the notion that capitalism without slavery is not whole, also seems bizarre.
Help me understand.  In what way is slavery integral to capitalism? Like a cat's ears to a cat?

We agree that slavery is "not essential" to capitalism.

Slavery certainly flies in the face of voluntaryism, (which seems to be what the an-caps this thread has provoked into carrying on for so long, are more narrowly advocating as the true definition of "capitalism").
I remain skeptical that either the term "Anarchist", or "Capitalist", are reclaimable outside the realms of ivory towers by the an-caps, though I expect that effort to never cease.  (well... maybe it will after another 20 pages of posts)

Σ(N * (% of time N applies))

If everything had the same value to everyone else at all times there would be no trade.

How does any of this refute the notion of things having intrinsic value when it seems to  indicate the opposite?

It seem unintuitive to imagine that those without debt would not trade.  But starting from such a premise, the rest of what you have written makes sense.

What definition of integral were you intending, the mathematical?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integral
Voluntarism is not new, and it obvious that some other term is needed since all the folks disagreeing are discussing different meanings of the terms being used.  So either there has to be a definition which is agreed, or a different term.
I didn´t pick it out of nowhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism

Slavery, being involuntary, is in no way essential, nor even included in what the anarchocapitalists advocate.  So outside even the broadest definitions of integral.

I am finding that folks attempting to reclaim both anarchy and capitalism as useful words in discourse are going to end up wasting more time than they need to.
They might do better with ¨voluntarism¨ or something similar.

Let the anti capitalists fight paper tigers and straw men and move on...

By "cycle" and "now" do we mean, "this epoch" or "this week"?

We all look forward to something better, and must have curiosity as to what that might be in order to meaningfully contribute.  Bitcoin being an example of something better.

Interesting example.
And Why not?  Many do.  This one had over 16 million views last I looked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL7yD-0pqZg

My experience is entirely different.
I've found survival requirements to be most easily satisfied by providing something which society values, or at minimum, individual members of society. 
Rather than walking on heads, helping others more easily walk on their own feet can be quite rewarding, and I recommend it heartily.

And the transaction hash provides an index useful in adding whatever additional elements are needed for the variety of ever-changing accounting standards - to the external compliance software, and outside the block chain.

The "Anarcho-Capitalists" have done this abandonment, though conjoining with another often misunderstood notion may not have been the best selection for the purpose of philosophical marketing.
Your claim that "capitalism" requires state power, would suggest that they are advocating something entirely different from the capitalism-as-is-commonly-understood.

Thus my point about their superior retail experience.  We don't take credit, but we do take Bitcoin, and other non-reversible transactions.

The exchanges are growing, but the striking number that ought not be ignored is the futures volume.
It is approaching the volume of BTC-E.
Futures are where the price manipulation will be happening increasingly. 
https://796.com/reg/index/100231

That and Depositors traditionally are entitled to withdraw the deposit.  Shareholders must find the greater fool and sell for what they can get.

The new piece is that not just lenders take the loss, but also depositors, who are converted to shareholders in the failing bank.

How do states facilitate capitalism?  The opposite seems more common.
Government in most any its forms seem generally anti-capitalist.
The obvious exceptions being lex mercatoria and contract law.