You wrote, "I trust the judgment of unhampered individual actors in the market, working in concert, far more than the judgment of unnamed government officials acting in the "best interest" of the citizens." Why? Just because...? There is no greater reason to trust people out of government more than in government. Walking over the threshold of government doesn't flip a morality switch on going out and off going in.
You want money to be the means by which people vote (unequally). Mammon so-called price discovery isn't inherently superior, or even superior at all, to one-vote-per-person ballot counting.
Unbridled individuals criminally and fraudulently collude ("working in concert," as you called it); and if not for others gathering by their power of collective self-government, those colluding individuals, those frauds, would simply return to being the brutal feudal lords they were. In fact, the more laissez-faire capitalist things are, the more those feudal lords exist as the plutocrats of today, who purchase nearly the only means others have against them: "government."
Crony capitalism doesn't exist because we don't have laissez-faire advocates. Laissez-faire advocates create cronyism because they fear the righteous indignation of the supposed mob that would tar and feather them and run them all out on rails if not simply string them up for the selfish, greedy, amoral, serpents (Jesus's term and I agree with him) that they are.
We don't need more laissez-faire (let-do). We need to free up democracy. Democracy doesn't work right now because it is tied up with capitalism by capitalists who work to keep the people out, to keep the public out, to keep everything they can private, secret, in the dark, to perpetuate their evil, self-gaining schemes against the people.
You are doing the bidding of the Koch brothers, who ironically enough, since you mentioned natural ecology as analogous to the capitalist "market," are about as anti-ecological as one might imagine and would never be stopped by free-market capitalism but short of the people's government (the people themselves stopping that unbridled capitalism), would only be stopped by nature itself revolting against the assault upon it by "unhampered individual actors in the market." Nature is the market and won't continue "buying" it whether the people collectively put a stop to the sale of it or not.
Are you for or against Monsanto? Monsanto buys government to keep it out of the hands of the people for whom it was ostensibly designed by the "Founders." I'm speaking of the US, but the point still applies elsewhere. I say ostensibly because a good number of those Founders were seeking a strong balance for the landed-elite American aristocracy against the supposed less deserving "lower classes": the rest of the citizenry.
Are you for or against mandatory labeling of GMO's? Without it and in an unhampered market, how would you know whether or not something contains what you don't want to eat? Would you simply trust your Monsanto neighbor? I'd rather trust my government that I want to be my government rather than Monsanto's.
Your comment about "comrades" fails to appreciate that the competition is between competition and cooperation. The laissez-faire is the competitive individual versus the anti-capitalist cooperative/collective. The laissez-faire leaves room for collective effort via private contracts that they can keep secret. Many anti-capitalists leave room for individualism. The anarcho-capitalist seeks a psychological point where only money speaks in the market. Many anti-capitalists seek the point where only non-money speaks and equally and with full transparency.
Which moves closer to the more perfect union? What's the point of reform if we don't move in the right direction? To discuss banking and monetary reform without addressing capitalism versus anti-capitalism is to fail to see the forest for the trees.
James [...] wants to trust his neighbor, but who is his neighbor and whose government is it?
James, you speak as if your neighbor isn't everyone else on the planet, robber barons and elected officials and victims of chemical poisoning from capitalists who are insufficiently regulated because those Koch-brother capitalists have deliberately purchased elected officials because those Koch types haven't been able to get everyone on board with you: the duped (or the shilling?). Hopefully you aren't wittingly shilling for the Plutocrats.
Exactly how would you go about convincing the Kochs not to pollute the planet for their private gain since they are only going to be here a short season and have wanted to get theirs while the getting is still "good"?
If I'm going to bother to sway people, I may as well sway them to the cooperative way rather than the Koch way. Why should the Kochs have a greater say? They've done things they should not have and in so doing, have grossly enriched themselves at the direct, negative expense of the entire planet and everyone else on it. Under a fair democracy, everyone else would simply voice it that those brothers should not do what they have done and that would be that: no more "unhampered individual actors in the market," the Kochs, destroying all the neighbors' place to live.
Do you realize what capitalists are doing right now concerning nanotechnology? http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/7278 Sure, non-capitalists could embark upon such insanity; but if we were to have a real democracy, where everyone would have full knowledge of such ideas before being allowed to be released upon the world, it wouldn't happen – the insanity wouldn't happened. Immorality is, after all, ignorance. That's the enemy: ignorance, not government, per se.