The Liberal strategy:
1. Claim the free market doesn't work.
2. Do absolutely everything they can to destroy the free market.
3. Say "See? We told you the free market doesn't work!"
4. Blame Capitalists.

If the exchange is voluntary on both sides then it is an act of capitalism. The specific motives of the parties to the transaction are irrelevant. Price and convenience are simply examples of legitimate reasons why someone might want to buy or sell a good or service. There are many others, such as durability, strength and aesthetic appeal.

in capitalism, the why doesn't matter, in true capitalism, no one is forced against their will to either sell a good or buy a good, as you pointed out its an act of free will to trade value for value, and everyone that does this, does so as a willful act of self sustaining and self interest with their life as the means to their own ends.

I suppose so; but people also purchase things for
other reasons. For instance, a person may hang
around a particular store because he enjoys the
company of the storekeeper and other customers
who come there, and possibly there is a TV set on which the people watch programs (or sports
shows). (Historically, I believe there were
instances of a checkerboard and cider, etc.)
Is that a point against capitalism? Not at all.
I say we should have freedom. In which case,
the capitalist system would also flourish.

The roots of the word "capitalism" illustrate why it is not a good word to use when speaking of free, voluntary trade. The word was first used by a French socialist/anarchist named Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in generally describing an economic system which socialists opposed.

I think you are correct in noting that the problem is in definitions, with the socialistic crowd labeling certain economic interactions "capitalistic" when they clearly are anything but in the eyes of free market advocates. What the left often fails to do is differentiate between free market, voluntary trade (what we are forced to call capitalism for lack of alternative word), and government collusion with business, or what many have labeled "crony capitalism."

Governments that confiscate wealth from citizens and redistribute it to certain businesses, directly via subsidies, or indirectly via tariffs on competing companies, that is immoral and corrupt. Unfortunately, a large number of people have been brainwashed by leftist media, academia and Hollywood into thinking crony capitalism also called (interventionism, favoritism, mercantilism) is what is meant by "capitalism."

What we need is a better word to represent free, voluntary trade. Until then, we might as well be using "crapitalism," as the current descriptor.

True capitalism is a value-for-value exchange unfettered by impositions from third parties (like government or health insurance). In a capitalistic society, you bear the full costs of your purchase and get to enjoy the full benefits as well.

the word Capitalism as defined by dictionary.com...
"an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth."
Beyond that I think it comes from "to capitalize", on anything one might have and seek to profit from.
The Rulers prefer to shade it sinful, and an excuse to screw with the natural Free Market.

You betcher bippy.(Rowan & Martin). Any action of exchange of services or product for money or services is capitalism. I would bet there are hundreds of distortions of this simple fact, The only "types" of capitalism are a social system and a financial system. The financial system is based on the social system which is based on "the recognition of individual rights, including property rights in which all property is privately owned."

Lasik is a good example. It avoided all the healthcare regs and subsidies. As a result it has become cheaper and much better. Unlike the rest of healthcare. Cell phones could be another example of what happens when you have relatively unfettered capitalism.

The first three comments from mgarbizo, CBJ,and blarman are all true. Allow me to suggest, though, that there may be a better understanding. If we differentiate the "free market" from "capitalism" then those comments describe a "free market." To me, "capitalism" is the economic system of investment in enterprise. Those words "investment" and "enterprise" have objective meanings.

Markets have existed for perhaps 8000 years. But realize that they are not "natural" to all peoples. Even today, people who do not associate with market economies have a different mental framework from those who do. (See "The Weirdest People in the World" here: http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdf... ) In the Anabasis ("Journey Up Country") by Xenophon, at one point, the Greek soldiers are short on provisions and they ask a village to set up a market so that they can buy foodstuffs with coins, but the villagers are unable to understand what the Greeks want.

Even so, for thousands of years Sumerians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and Indians, did indeed buy and sell, make purchases, make choices. But their societies were not capitalistic.

Some libertarians dislike the word "capitalism" because as an ISM, it refers to "the rule of sociey by..." as in feudalism, socialism, fascism, agrarianism, and so on... They prefer a society ruled by no one social group. Fair enough, perhaps...

But, what is a society "ruled by capitalists"?

It is not an easy question. That is why Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal runs 24 chapters. We decry "liberal education" but still even in the Gulch people want one-line definitions. Reality is more complicated than that.

Capitalism depends on people who know reality, use reason, and identify their self-interest, and are able to act on that without interference from a government limited to protecting rights. That kind of society is one that is powered by investment in enterprise. That requires discovery and creation, innovation and invention. Merely buying a sheep instead of a goat is not capitalism. Capitalism was invented in the Age of Reason when the first joint stock companies, beginning with the Dutch East India Company, sold shares of investment. That blossomed in the 19th century with corporations that financed railroads, telegraphs, radios, and electronic components -- and in the 20th century automobiles, aircraft, and computers, delivering to us the world we have today.
(See "The Art of Finance" here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... and Scripophily here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20... )

I have been studying advanced economics, and I have learned that although all people act in their self-interest, it means different things to different people. It can mean the importance of a consumer's time or convenience.

No, it's not true capitalism by your definition. The merits of a product don't get discovered by the consumer because shills are manipulating the real value of goods and its placement in the marketplace using social media channels.