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.

This is a personal decision, not one he's trying to push on others. Just as those who so choose have the option of living as long as their body holds out, so too should people have the option of not prolonging their life as long as possible.

I have inoperable cancer, and its effects on me are such that at some point I will no longer be able to manage the symptoms to the point that life will not be worth living. I don't want to spend months or years in a narcotic fog to dull the pain enough so I can just keep breathing. Short of spontaneous remission, I will at some point choose to end my own life rather than suffer needlessly. My family is aware of this decision, and I will inform them at the point it is necessary so there are no surprises. I would do the same were my mind degrading to the point it would be clear my existence contributed nothing more than consuming oxygen and taking up space. I've talked to many others who feel exactly the same way. I'm not trying to kill other people based on some arbitrary criteria, but I sure as hell won't accept being kept alive because "all life is sacred." It's not.

I doubt the GP is drawing those conclusions from the distress of relatives, but rather from direct interaction with dementia patients.

You've never lived with someone who has advanced dementia, have you? I suppose you could be on the autism spectrum and be unable to understand body language that is obvious to everyone else. When you learn how mental trauma translates into actions, you can come to pretty obvious conclusions about the mental state of someone by those same actions, even if they are unable to articulate what's going on in their head.

When someone regularly descends into fits of sobbing when certain things happen, it's pretty easy to come to the conclusion that, hey, there's something disturbing this person. You don't need to be in their head to figure out things with other obvious signs.

Extortion isn't acceptable in a free market any more than it is in a decently regulated one.

Giving discounts to people who are going to prevent someone from extorting money from them isn't shitty behaviour.

They have no answer because there is no answer when people are relatively free.

I doubt he's going to get much out of the "social development" of middle and high school now that he's in his 20s. He's either got it by now, or he doesn't.

And in mobile, Nvidia has the fastest graphics operations. Just look at the Shield.

Much of what they do would never have been possible to implement in software, because it would take a billion years to complete the operations. Therefore, nobody wrote software to do what Nvidia does in hardware.

Yes, if Qualcomm negotiated for past use, Samsung would be protected from suit.