It seems like you agree with OP?

"Capitalism" revolves around maximizing what can be treated as capital, including by divvying up what would otherwise by the commons through various concepts of imaginary properties.

Types of "capital" include government-created privileges obtained through regulatory capture that keep upstart competitors from entering the market. If you're coming from a place of wanting fewer regulations, then you're actually advocating against capitalism! Contrast with "free markets", which may be simplistic but at least keeps the emphasis on the competition mechanic rather than the suffocating dynamic of rent seeking.

It seems to me rather, that you are using a definition of "capitalism" that is distinct from and perhaps at odds with how other people are using the term.

The definition you're using seems to be clearly a far-left, anti-capitalism interpretation which has essentially inverted goals/motivations with side-effects/externalities compared to what a pro-capitalist, market-oriented type of person would suggest.

Basically, you're suggesting that regulatory capture is a goal of "capitalism" and while most people would say that's an anti-capitalist failure of government.

Everyone agrees regulatory capture is bad, so maybe we could all work together to fix that badness regardless of abstract differences of opinion.

* * *

You have isolated yourself to only one type of capitalism, and then seemly incorrectly extracted free markets from being capitalism, when in reality in lay terms free markets is what people refer to as capitalism. The other esoteric types of capitalism are not widely known and therefore in common language should not be used in place of the more widely accepted understanding of free markets when talking about "capitalism" in colloquial conversation as we are here.

In short when having informal conversations a person referring to "capitalism" should be assumed to be talking about free market capitalism unless they indicate otherwise, Not to be assumed to be referring to corporatism, crony capitalism, mercantilism or any other types of capitalism

>One type of capital is government-created privileges obtained through regulatory capture,

Copyright was not created from regulatory capture, copyright was expanded and abused will beyond its original remit via regulatory capture

What I have said applies to anything that puts "capital" first and foremost. From my perspective, you're trying to write off the critique via no-true-Scotsman.

I agree that people want to think of free markets and capitalism as being intertwined and inseparable, but I'm pointing out how they end up being in conflict. And as capitalism continues to evolve, this conflict continues to grow.

> Copyright was not created from regulatory capture, copyright was expanded and abused will beyond its original remit via regulatory capture

Sure. And every time it was expanded, the amount of capital increased while market freedom decreased! Capitalism and free markets are not one and the same, but rather two different qualities that can end up being in conflict.

Ultimately if one wants to advocate for freedom, one needs to focus on advocating for it directly, rather than for an economic system that is increasingly in conflict with it. You can still think of economics in terms of capital (and I think it makes sense to). But the desires of capital need to be made deliberately subservient to freedom rather than vice-versa.

All Free Markets are capitalist, you can not have a free market without capital

Not all capital markets are free...

You explain to me how a free market would work with out capital

I haven't asserted that all capital is in conflict with free markets or freedom, nor that all forms of capital should be (somehow) abolished.

Rather I've pointed out that some forms of capital are directly at odds with freedom and free markets.