I think the only person I quoted was you, at the beginning of my post. The rest is my written definition based on 25years of following pinnacle champions of capitalism like Rothbard, Bastiat, Hayek, Mises, Sowell, Freedman, and so on. It would seem that your belief that capitalism as we defined here is dependent on government protected property rights. Why? Nature already solves for this. Free people work to create, claim and maintain valuable property as their own. As such they allow others to do the same. For the infrequent times where those who don’t respect this natural system try to violate it and steal from others, others have the ability they were born with to protect it them selves. Where disputes occur government can be a tool but isn’t required. People can go to whatever lengths they prefer to reach fair agreement. If disrespect for the system and theft becomes predominant then the system and its benefits diminish and society suffers. So it would seem that although having a procapitalism government as a protector could be helpful, it is not required. Rather, what is required is a people who respect and protect the natural capitalism system and everyone’s rights to property and ability to freely exchange. Government isn’t required and furthermore can be corrupted and become the largest hinderance. …which is where we are today.