I don't presume to answer for Robert, but please allow me to interject my two cents worth here, because it goes to the root of what we know about free enterprise, or what we think we know about it, as opposed to insisting on strict dictionary definitions that can be manipulated to misdirect and obscure the conversation.

We are very fortunate that we live in a system (and a country) that allows individuals to seize control of their own economic life, rather than rely on an employer or boss to do it for them. We all know and respect the man (or woman) who can open his own business, run his own shop, compete against his competitors in a tough market and provide for his customer's needs and his workers' livelihoods. He puts out a good product at a fair price, meets a payroll, pays his bills and contributes to his customers and his community. This is not easy to do, many good men fail trying it, and it takes hard work, innovation, courage, and great strength of character. Markets composed of people like this produce an economic life that is efficient, self-regulating, and takes advantage of every man's desire to work hard and improve his and his family's lot in life.

I, for one, have great respect and admiration for those who can do this, because I know for a fact I can't! I can do a good job and work hard, but I need the guidance and structure of a formal workplace environment to do this, I can't make one of those happen by myself. I learned a long time ago I don't have what it takes, mentally or emotionally, to take responsibility of the entire process, and I am thankful that some folks do. And yes, I believe they deserve to be honored, and well payed for their skill and dedication. What they do is essential to our freedom and our prosperity.

But I don't see these people as "capitalists"; even though technically, as business owners and managers, that is what they are, according to the dictionary definition of the word. The free enterprise heroes I'm referring to know how to do something, very well. They understand a skill, or profession, or an industry: and they know how to set up a business that can thrive and prosper in that market. I know how to make maps, and I know how to navigate boats, but I could never own a mapping company or be a ship's captain. To practice my profession, I need a businessman or a Captain who not only understands the work, but how the work interacts with the market and society. See the difference?

What I call a "capitalist" is not someone who understands a profession or trade or industry and has built a thriving business around his skills. I think of capitalists as people who only know the business end, who think they can take over any business, regardless of what it makes or produces, and turn it into a machine for generating revenue. They actually believe that if you can run a bank, you can run an airline, or a chain of supermarkets. That being a "businessman" is a generic, interdisciplinary skill that transcends the product or service or market. These people don't see themselves as providing something useful to the community, they see a company merely as a machine for generating revenue. If it fails to make money, you liquidate it, you dismantle it, and you invest in something else, preferably with other people's money.

The community, the natural and social environment, the employees, the stockholders, even the security and prosperity of the nation mean nothing to these people. They are only in it for the money. They don't compete in a market, they game the system to drive out the competition, and corrupt the government to provide them hidden subsidies, taxation and regulations that favor their interests, not the industry's or the nation's. And if its cheaper to conduct their business in another country, they'll leave us in a heartbeat, because they have no loyalty to anyone's welfare but their own. These people have about as much to do with business as lawyers have to do with justice.