Jim Choate wrote:

...

When I talk of a free market I mean Laissez Faire Capitalism, not Anarcho-Capitalism.

What's the specific difference?

I cannot claim to be an expert on anarcho-capitalism, but the fundamental difference is Laissez Faire Capitalists believes in limited government. The primary role of government being the abolition of coercive force, the protection of intellectual property, and running or overseeing of what can absolutely be justified as a natural monopoly (e.g. military defense, sewer, local roads, etc). Anarcho-capitalism on the other hand believes in no government (anarchy) and that social institutions and co-ops will assume any functions that a government would have had. Some believe that people and organizations will independently prevent force will others believe in a competitive free market for force and protection. In either case there is no government interference in free trade (except LF would prohibit Assassination Politics (AP) and similar).

In what way are the resulting markets different from either the producers or consumers view?

Views on intellectual property and the obvious marketplace changes due to an IP or lack of IP framework would be the major difference IMHO. I cannot currently justify no intellectual property rights taken to an extreme, and then you have the contradiction of force within the framework of commerce.

Explain further what you mean by abolition of force is a prerequisite please.

Basically no person (or entity) can use force (or its derivatives) against another person (or entity). Your long history of criminal law, except stripped of all victimless crimes.

And what specificaly do you mean by proper role of government?

"What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend -- even by force -- his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right -- its reason for existing, its lawfulness -- is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force -- for the same reason -- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all." from _The Law_, by Frederick Bastiat Matt