Yes, but they define capitalism as simply ‘that which is voluntary.’ Propertarianism and profit motive are presented as consequences of their definition. Present-day free-market anticapitalism appears to be the assertion that the non-aggression principle, if actually realized, would produce rather different outcomes. It’s an untested hypothesis, of course. I’m agnostic concerning which way that particular domino would fall.

Besides, even if the market is the only alternative to coercion (I’m not quite there), that doesn’t make it the antithesis to coercion. That, I would say, is thick voluntarism.