The anarcho-capitalist will usually argue that the reason the economy is bad is because the state and its interference have stymied it, and the reason corporations are so powerful is because they are in bed with the state (figuratively speaking), and the state in turn protects and empowers the corporations. I mostly agree with these arguments. Corporations are given special rights and protections, treated as 'persons' in their own right, and the actual persons behind the corporation are protected through a legal shell game, sometimes called the corporate veil. This legal framework is entirely opposed by the state. The idea is that if the state wasn't there to protect the corporations, or rather the people behind them, from accountability they would lose the bulk of their power. And if the state didn't inhibit economic growth through unnecessary regulation and licensing requirements, which set the bar high for potential competitors to enter the market and thus protect corporate monopolies at the cost of individual enterprise, then the economy could grow, recover, adapt, and evolve in new ways to meet the changing economic circumstances, such as the rise of advanced automation.

However, the anarcho-capitalists also like to claim that a business firm could not achieve any sort of lasting monopoly within an anarcho-capitalist system, because it is the state which protects and enables the monopolies. I believe this is incredibly naive, and feel very unreassured by this shakey assertion by the anarcho-capitalists. My single biggest concern about anarcho-capitalism is that monopolies would form, and they would use passive and indirect (and perhaps, once they became powerful enough, direct) forms of coercion to sustain themselves, expand, and render other people dependent on them for their livelihoods. Thus, these firms would become a new form of state, every bit as coercive and violent as the states of today.

This is, among other reasons, why I believe that rights must be coupled with equal responsibility. Owning and administrating property is a right, but with that right comes responsibility. Owning lots of wealth, to the point where you could negatively influence someone's livelihood or create a situation where they are dependent, or where you can exercise undue leverage over them, comes with a responsibility to preserve and promote the empowerment of the affected individuals. Wealth should be a burden. Great wealth should be a great burden.