Inches? How archaic.

Sugar is poison. A 1.5l bottle of Coke has 5 days worth of recommended sugar in it. It's shocking to see children drinking this stuff.

The salesman has permission via their employment to sell the car. It's still a transaction between the buyer and the salesperson. The money doesn't so to the salesperson's account, but that's irrelevant.

An individual should be able to voluntarily trade with another. A company should be able to voluntarily trade with another company, or another individual. The state should not be involved.

Back to my point: land of the free indeed.

No, but the person who sells the Tesla car is a person who happens to work for Tesla. That salesman should be able to sell his product to anyone who is willing to buy it without government involvment.

I don't understand how the state can prevent one man from selling his goods to another. Land of the free indeed.

This is not a loophole, it's policy. Good policy. Rather than bowing to pressure from other governments the other governments should pay attention and try and compete by reducing their tax rate accordingly. Anything else is price fixing, on a global scale.

I run Gentoo on both my work and home PCs, and I use a special flavour of Ubuntu with real-time extensions to drive a CNC controller. I have experienced hassles with Gentoo along the way, but they seem fewer are farther between now. Compiling from source isn't an issue for me. I can have all 4 cores pegged to 100% for a couple of hours and I hardly even notice it. I prefer the control I have with Gentoo.

The first flying car I ever saw on TV.

No company should be prevented from selling their products directly to the public. Land of the free indeed.

You're correct, but the problem you mention is nothing to do with capitalism. If you're suugesting that socialism is a solution to that then you're advocating that the state actively harms people to help those in need.

The only ethical way to help people in need is via compassion and charity. Since government enforced wealth redistribution is compulsoy, it cannot be compassionate not charitable. Those traits are voluntary. It's not the political system via the government that should address the issue of people in need, it's the social system via communities and *voluntary* action that should.

On that we disagree. People should be protected from the initiation of force. The state shouldn't be in the business of actively harming people.

Ethically capitalism is way ahead. Nobody should be in enforced slavery. The state shouldn't actively harm us, they should be procting us from people who want to harm us. Socialism (of the kind in the US, Europe and almost everywhere else) sees the state actively harming people under the guise of "helping" them. That's ethically and morally wrong.

There is no slavery in a proper capitalist system (that is, a system where people are free) - at least not slavery of the kind we're talking about. People will always be slaves to nature and the needs of their bodies - no system can change that.

It's the goal of socialism. When you work for money and the state then confiscates a portion of that money for their own uses,that's effective slavery. You are working for them without choice. Socialism makes EVERYONE who works a slave to the state.

Capitalism is about freedom of choice and freedom of trade. If anything, people are slaves to nature - we must feed and clothe ourselves. That's nothing to do with capitalism though.

And many atheists do not.

The term "atheism" means "without theism". I.e. without a belief in a god. It's about a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.

Destroyed? Hardly.