I had occasion to explain myself yesterday. Specifically, I explained why I do not argue for the wholesale capitalism but I argue, instead, for adopting the free market system. Where do I draw the line between the two concepts?

As background: my intellectual roots are deep within Objectivism with books like Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal serving as my springboard into economic theory. (And, yes, I know it was as much or more of a book on morality than economics.) When I discovered Murray Rothbard, the more sophisticated world of Austrian economics opened for me; I retained (as I do now) a marked personal preference for capitalism as the most productive, fair and sensible economic system on the face of the earth.

Then I encountered the 19th century libertarian Titan Benjamin Tucker. I was bowled over by his analysis of the State but sorely disappointed by his rejection of capitalism. And, no, it was not State Capitalism that Tucker rejected but capitalism itself -- e.g. the charging of rent. I reconciled myself to Tucker's economic views when I realized that he did not and would not enforce his economic policies upon the free exchanges of others. That is to say, if you were stupid enough (in his opinion) to sign a contract to pay rent to a landlord, then he would not interfere in an agreement between two individuals; instead, he would leave you to your folly. First and foremost, he believed in "society by contract." In short, he might be against capitalism but he was for the free market. Because he would not use force, Tucker's economic errors did no damage to society or to individuals. Tucker's contemporary Ezra Heywood held similar views. He despised capitalism. His solution to capitalism was the free market -- e.g. free banking through which private individuals could issue their own currencies without State regulation.

Another factor made me draw a line between my personal embrace of laissez-faire capitalism and my public advocacy of the free market. We live near a Mennonite community that functions along communal, almost socialistic lines. It functions well, it prospers, members can leave at any time, the members are good neighbors to all. In a free market, their choice to be communal is as valid as my choice to function within the capitalistic sectors of society. We are all free to make whatever voluntary exchanges fit our needs, beliefs, personalities, etc. That's what I want for society: not necessarily a capitalistic arrangement but a free market system in which everyone can make the peaceful choices they wish with their own bodies and labor.

My choice is laissez-faire capitalism. And I have absolutely no doubt that enough people will choose capitalism along with me to make economic exchanges no problem whatsoever. But I don't feel even an impulse to convince those who embrace other systems of their error. I feel no impulse whatsoever to point out to my Mennonite neighbors the economic/philosophical error of their ways. I don't want to become the economic equivalent of a Jehovah's Witness, knocking on people's doors to save their economic souls. Give me freedom; I'll respect your freedom; and, you know, the mix of resulting economic arrangements (as long as they are all voluntary) may well bring a diversity and progress that astounds us all.

That's why I don't publicly insist on one particular choice in economic arrangements -- capitalism -- any more than I argue for one particular choice in reproductive or family arrangements. I argue for people to have every peaceful choices available to them...in short, the free market. May the best system win.