That people like me spend their professional lives using numbers to describe the state of an economy is really just about trying to quantify risk. But the debate between economic systems is about decision making, and who makes the decisions. If the government puts a law in place which makes it illegal for you to do what you would otherwise do, then they have made a decision for you and enforced that decision with (at least the threat of) force.
Now you have given up your freedom, but your company will stay where it is. Of course, you'll have to charge more now, so you'll lose business, but maybe you can convince the government to put another law in place which takes away the freedom of choice from your customers. This goes on ad infinitum under socialism.
Personally, I think a businessman doing what he must to make his business as profitable as posible is the most moral thing a man can do. I think the immorality of the authors equation is when someone has the nerve to try to convince him that he should give up his freedom of choice for the benefit of others.
All this because the author can't understand the law of comparative advantage.
Actually, I think I have a better book for you to read. Hayek is a classic, but it reads a little slow. Try reading "Knowledge and Decisions" by Thomas Sowell. Personally I think it's the best Economic text I've ever read.
Cheers.