If one is a believer in moral relativism (i.e. that there is no single absolute set of moral values that applies to all people in all times), then there is no way to form a consensus on which school of economic thought should be preferred over others in terms of their intent or guiding principles. While BM espouses individual freedom (which I also hold dearly), it is equally valid for others to hold the view that the greater good might be a higher principle even if individual freedoms are sometimes sacrificed, and indeed the ranking of such preferences for any person may also be time- or context-dependent. We must accept that our value judgments are often personal preferences and not universal laws. Even in Bitshares there is not a purity of application of the principle of individual freedom - BTS are now diluted for the common good even if individual freedoms in evaluating the merits of such wealth transfers are compromised, as I have raised before. This is neither absolutely right nor wrong - individuals make their own judgments.
I feel there is no need to use intellectual labels, economic or otherwise, to box BitShares or its diverse community. This will surely lead to straw-man arguments against it, and unnecessary debates within its community. Instead I think it is better to focus on where the community will derive value from this newly evolved ecosystem and the technological tools that make it possible, benefits such as increased personal freedom, global diversity and association, greater resource efficiency, indisputable security, etc. These end-benefits will drive the accelerating adoption.