A progressive sales tax would be something like taxing common consumer goods at 5%, but luxuries like yachts and supercars at 50%. That's all it means.

Yup. Plenty of instances where it needs to be pointed out that a victim did something really stupid to enable their victimization.
News flash: people are responsible for their actions in most cases. There are certainly cases where victims bear no reasonable responsibility for their predicament, but there are absolutely cases where they bear significant responsibility.

Fixed that for you. There is not, nor has there ever been, a Latin plural of the word "virus."

My total net household income is under 20k, supporting two people. If I had an additional 81k per year, I definitely could afford to pay 24k/year for a car.

I wish I still had mod points, because this is the beginning and end of the issue. Unfortunately, most people are not able to see these issues objectively, but instead react to the emotional shouts from the extreme with which they are more closely aligned (which is usually pretty far from their beliefs, but just a tad closer than the opposing extremist views).

They're pretty common to see running BMCs as well.

Man, the attics only get to 120F in Arizona? I would've guessed quite a bit higher, given that those near the northern border will easily reach that in the summer as well.

"Right to work" is not the same as "at will employment." They have nothing to do with each other.

His arguments should have been:
1) Government employees can shoot you with little consequence.
2) Government employees can lock you up with little consequence, and shoot you if you resist.

Penalizing violent or coercive actions is not within the scope of what constitutes a free market. "Free market" doesn't mean "anything goes" any more than "free speech" means you can slander someone or incite a panic.

It has nothing to do with "me deciding" anything. If my statement is true, it still does not, in any way, contradict the historical definition of what constitutes a free market.

You're using the definition of "free" as "anything goes." The actual definition of a free market pertains to government intervention regarding pricing and wages, not coercive or violent actions.

That's never been the definition of a "free market," though assuming that is the definition is probably why many people oppose the concept.

A free market is one where the government does not intervene by setting artificial prices or by creating legal barriers to entry. It has never included a principle preventing the State from policing coercive activities such as rape, murder, extortion, blackmail, etc.

You apparently didn't read the part about vehicles being disabled while they were being driven.

Unfortunately, those situations are almost always the result of a lack of financial education, not because they actually have to engage in that cycle. Of course, once in that cycle, it's almost impossible to get out of without making serious sacrifices. People convince themselves those sacrifices are not possible, rather than simply vary distasteful.

There's a big difference between having your car booted and having it shut off while you're doing 70mph in the middle of freeway traffic.

I'm all for financial responsibility, but murdering people because they're 3 days late on a payment isn't an acceptably proportional response.