But the effects of laissez-faire capitalism amount to the imposition of plutocracy, which is another form of the conservative’s beloved autocracy.

Plutocracy is not autocracy. Just ask Putin's unhappy oligarchs.

I'm not aware that conservatives favor autocracy. Surely, all autocrats are conservative with respect to autocracy, but not all conservatives favor for autocracy. Would a king who imposes a progressive economic regime be a conservative? Seems to me the categories blur.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not really a thing. I'm sure there are some wackos who think every law ever passed would have been privately negotiated given enough time, but those guys don't realize that the US form of government is nothing more than a forum for negotiations among capitalists, laborers, consumers, and environmentalists. When those groups make a deal, we call it a law.

When companies collude to fix prices, is that laissez-faire capitalism? What about when, to please their customers, they agree through the coordinating mechanism of political action not to employ children? Is that not just another agreement among interest parties? Maybe that is "laissez-faire" capitalism after all. I guess it depends on what one considers "market activity."