"This is a continuation of a previous post in which Tom says, "The principle on which human interactions, political or economic, must be based are those of individual rights." Sounds like the mantra straight from the Obectivist Newsletter of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, this soundbite isn't true."

I would say "Sounds like the mantra straight from the Obectivist Newsletter of Ayn Rand" is the soundbite in this paragraph.

"In point of fact, the genius of the American Constitution lies in it being the first written national document in history to protect individual rights. Obviously there was a history of human interaction prior to the Consitution. And please keep in mind individual rights were placed in the Constitution as an afterthought in an act of--dare I use the term-appeasement to get the document signed."

It seems that you think the words "compromise" and "appeasement" are identical in meaning.

"Governments have always been based upon concepts of legitimacy: Divine Rights-rule bequethed by God; Hereditability, Conquest; self-rule, confederation, etc. In short, as you say, there are hundreds of social living arrangements not based on individual rights. These forms gain their legitimacy by various means of force and coercison- religion being one of history's best used tools for this purpose."

Rather than being comprehrensive, I would say this is a rather limited and ultimately unworkable worldview. As a quick stab, I would say that fear is a primal force, and that therefore the degree of predictable in the future is a more important aspect: confidence/trust = legitimacy.

"The "Free-Market" capitalism you worship grew out of the Mercantilism of Florence, Italy. A society that had no concept of individual rights, and in which rule was by family structure. What is called the Clan system."
There is evidence of trade 20,000 year ago. Trade probably predated the very idea of "property"- trade was a means of saying "Hello"- a means of "foreign policy"- a way of universially communicating to another human being- a "calling card". Capitalism is related to technology- a system of doing anything [such as producing goods]. A caveman who "has" a copper mine where he gets copper ore, smelts it into copper and makes a copper axe which he trades for a few goats and a wife is a capitalist. A "free-market" generally is thought to have some form of money which is traded for goods- the Aztecs had some form of "Free Market"- their money was chocolate.

"When Tom says, "I think most people say "democracy," they are referring in shorthand to a checks-and-balances representative system similar to that in America, or like partilamentary systems in other nations." Somehow, Tom's interpretation of what "most people are thinking" appears as a less than adequate basis for defining terms for discussion."

Tom probably meant most people in America or at least people who familar with english and use the word, "democracy".

"When "free markets" are spoken of in economic terms, the concept of Laissez Faire, Laissez Passer is being evoked. This principle is a market operating without any restraint-let it alone, let it be is a fair translantion. No where, at no time has this sort of market existed. This is the sort of mythology that serves no analytical purpose. All markets at all time have contstraints on them of one sort or another. The paradigm of the Florentine markets were contstrained by capital requirements in which the church made the lending of money into the sin of usuary for christians. Thus, non-christians gained a monopoly position in financing trade."

So, I dispute the postion that "free markets and free systems (whatever they may be?) are a consequence of principles...." All markets and governments are, in my opinion, developed as a result of historical accidents and evolve reaching for that "comparative advantage" that Adam Smith talked about to move towards what is described a the "principle of convergence." This is the only principle involved."

In an American context, "free" means limited govermental interference: For example: Free Press- means a Press which isn't unduly hampered by laws and actions of the govt. This doesn't means that press is free from all govermental restraint. Obviously you could take "free" to such an absurd level that you have Anarchy. We want a somewhat controlled anarchy:).
Btw:
Comparative Advantage
"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not therby be diminished... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage."
(Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book IV:2, Modern Library edition)

Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson (1969) was once challenged by the mathematician Stanislaw Ulam to "name me one proposition in all of the social sciences which is both true and non-trivial." It was several years later than he thought of the correct response: comparative advantage. "That it is logically true need not be argued before a mathematician; that is is not trivial is attested by the thousands of important and intelligent men who have never been able to grasp the doctrine for themselves or to believe it after it was explained to them."
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/cadv_e.htm