I don't mean to be one, but the way in which Mark and Ian dismiss capitalism really bugs me. I haven't listened much this week, but regularly over the last year or more, the hosts have periodically dismissed and in some cases derided "capitalism" based on collectivist/socialist perceptions of the concept.
Capitalism is, generally, an economic system of private ownership. With ownership, individuals are inherently given control of said property. This logically implies laisse faire government. Any restriction on the rights of ownership or contract are NOT capitalistic. Because there has never been a truly capitalistic economy (internet, maybe, but that's a different discussion), discussion of economics is done in relative measures. More or less capitalistic in the context of this discussion. The American system is given the title "capitalist" (historically speaking) in that it has been the freest economy in world history, on net. This does not logically imply that Keynesian, Progressive, or Special Interest policies are capitalist.
As for the label argument, allowing opponents to define your vehicle of communication is absurd. Historically, liberty loving people have been chased from their stances. First, liberals were traitors (first to the Crown, then to the Union), then capitalists were cronies, and anarchists are thugs. Where does that leave people like Ian? Well, they have two choices: 1) I prefer not to label myself. I prefer to spell out every individual belief I have to anyone who asks. Plus, I hate being staked to one position; isn't it freer to be able to flit inanely from idea to idea? or 2) I'm a voluntary-anarcho-pantheo-libero-pacifi-peace- (insert label of the day here).
Now, I'm not saying that the hosts and guests aren't intelligent, just that often, they make absurd, uninformed declarations. The Cap. one just happens to be a peave of mine.
Full disclosure: I graduated from a public university with a degree in economics.