[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then by non-coercive society you mean a society where coercive acts are impossible? Because there's no such thing. Define how you're interpreting his use of the word "can".

[/ QUOTE ]

Coercive acts aren't impossible but they aren't representative of the societal structure. In anarchy, coercive acts may occur, under government they are guaranteed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then what did you mean by:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He can simply walk onto the land that the capitalist claims as his own.

[/ QUOTE ]

They both have this claim so is anarchy supposed to be defined as people endlessly trampling on each other?

How can that represent a non-coercive society by any measure?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's not guaranteed that the anarcho-socialist will want to walk on the capitalist's land, nor is he doing so with power obtained through forced taxation.
And I don't think anyone is "defining" anarchism as a situation in which this necessarily occurs. However conflict between those who are inclined toward a belief in capitalist property rights and those who aren't would not be easily solvable. E.g.:
"Get off my land"
"You can't, like, own land, man. I'm just getting some drinking water"
"Alright, I'm going to physically force you off."
"If you attack me I'm going to defend myself."
I'm not saying that this is a reason anarchism can't work, just that it can't work under some unified moral system such as natural rights.