Then take back the government. Here's where you can team up with laissez-faire capitalists and libertarians and take back the government. AND maybe learn a lesson that giving more and more power to the government means, in practice, making you more and more powerless.

Yes surface area to volume has been understood - but having the technology to make the surface area to volume just so for a person with physical characteristics (gender, age, weight, x, y ,z) with condition x as opposed to condition y has not existed.

You make a pill and it takes t amount of time to dissolve for 95% of the population. But for some people it would dissolve much quicker and others much longer.

Of course I didn't read the f'ing article but being able to further fine tune the delivery of medicine a good idea. And 3D printing can be used to create pills (objects) with a dramatically altered surface to volume ratio.

Yes there are. I see the maker community and the development of cheap computers playing a far greater role in personal computing. The iPad (or whatever) will always have its use but people concerned about being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" will always exist whether the aggressor is a thief or the government.

That being the case small personal computers and encryption will become an ever more important issue.

But people keep voting for government to take more and more of their money and to control their life even more - why because think think CAPITALISM is EVIL and only an ALL POWERFUL and ALL KNOWING god (I mean GOVERNMENT) can make things better.

Old-fashioned Friedmanesque economics said the old-fashioned Keynesian guy.

Because before 3D printing this couldn't be done - now could it? At least AFAIK.

Yes people hype 3D printing to death but 3D printing is still a useful tooll.

I ask you to consider the statement "generally accepted definition." Generally accepted by whom? Defenders and promoters or capitalism or detractors? If capitalism that uses the sanction of government to prevent competition is not capitalism. The term for that is mercantilism.

Too much to comment on here. In short your definition of capitalism is being defined by the "other." If there is physical coercion it is not capitalism.

Capitalism is non-coercive economic activity not directed by government. So, an anti-capitalist food co-op is a capitalist enterprise. People joined forces to create an enterprise (the very definition of in-corp-oration); they were not directed by the government; and they existed in freely -involved trade.

Take a look at Paris and Rome. Take a look at cities before elevators and you will find numerous beautiful, liveable areas with buildings in the 50-60 range. That is a good height. You're complaining about a 35 foot building?

Enforce yes. Having an ever increasing mission creep no.

No. Jails are not a sign of socialism. There is a lot wrong with our criminal justice system but, as far as I can tell, there aren't political prisoners. (Killing cops is to be punished even if the motivation was political.)

I bring this up because people fear corporations. But silly them they don't fear governments. Governments can imprison you; can kill you. Corporations simply try to sell you stuff and try to avoid paying salaries by bringing in cheaper workers - and sometimes try to skirt safety laws. ALL free-market capitalists from Menger, to von Mises, to Hayek to Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman all had strong roles for government (though limited). Not one of them was an anarcho-capitalist.

That's why you have limited government so that powerful forces cannot use the government to enforce their wishes.

No. Communism is the economic system in which individuals do not own any property - not simply the means of production.

and re France? If socialism is so good how come so many French people are emigrating to England and the US? Because they want to speak English?

Capitalism is the freedom of exchange through trade. What is possibly wrong with me trading one value (good or service) to you for another value? That, in essence is all capitalism is: the freedom to trade. Socialism states that this trade must first be approved by a government entity.

So, if I grow, make, create X and you're willing to pay for X what is the harm in that? Must everything (like kids selling lemonade) be documented, regulated and approved by a bureaucrat? You sure you want to live like that.