This is a very long essay, so I did not take time to read it all. But the parts that I read seem to be placing the cart before the horse. The assumption seemed to be that we began (amorally) with a free society and then ask how morality would fit into it, if in fact it does.
This is the wrong way to think about the relationship between morality and a free market. A free market is based on morality, because it is morality that justifies it, not the other way around. A free market depends on individual rights, and individual rights are first and foremost a moral concept, which can only be justified by a standard of morality. It is ethics that precedes and justifies politics. How you ought to behave in general determines how you ought to behave towards others.
The problem with a lot of libertarian thinkers is that they assume the free society as a given -- as an irreducible primary -- and then try to determine what kinds of actions would be morally acceptable in such a society. But philosophically, you can't even get to a free society without already having answered the question of what actions are in general morally appropriate.
This is why the Objectivist ethics are indispensable to laissez-faire capitalism. Ayn Rand's morality is the only legitimate foundation for a free society, because it is the only one that properly validates and justifies it.