i dont see the problem as one of superficial labelling.
it is more a problem of types of arguments that get presented and how these labels are used instead of argument, to short circuit them.
in the thread on minimum wage levels, you basically had two different positions.
one is influenced by the always foul milton friedman--which would claim that businesses act responsably when they generate profit and are not and should not be concerned with any other factors--these factors would include questions of whether wage levels actually enable workers to live. this line is as old as capitalism itself, and remains wholly afunctional (in that, over the long term, businesses have to accept the reproduction of its labor pool as a cost that it must bear). but no matter.
the motherlode for this position is a 3-page article friedman published in 1970 in the new york times magazine--have a look, if you havent seen it:
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroup...-business.html
it is remarkably crude logically, but remains of considerable ideological interest in that folk seem to actually agree with it. what i personally like about the article is its crudeness. generally, the claims made in it seem more plausible if you encounter them piecemeal, framed in other ways. but seeing the thing itself is good, i think.
the other arguments tried to introduce factors into consideration that depart from the premise that business is not a separate zone of space-time, but is in fact a social function. as it is a social function, engaging in it brings along bigger social obligations than simply generating profit.
it is routine these days for this debate to be framed around the fiction of the heroic individual entrepreneur, the high plains drifter kinda guy, whose heroic solitude comes with limitations--among these limitations are marginal profits which would be threatened were these clint eastwood types of pay their employees enough to actually live. this is an ideological choice which does not reflect the problems facing the major actors in american economic activity, which are large scale firms.
but the problem in the thread was that neither position really engaged with the other--so began the talking-by process and with that the usual namecalling and so it goes.