Capitalist Dilemma

In a capitalist country, anyone with money should be able to buy whatever happiness his money can afford right?
What if someone wants to buy the moon?
What if Coke or Pepsi or Reebok or Nike want to beam their logo onto the moon?
Is it alright, since they can afford it?

What about my right to beautiful nights?

Or are future lovers going to talk about their first kiss under an Adidas moon?

What do you think?

Update on 31 August

Adding what girish quoted from my post on pagalguy.com:

Capitalism has recognized that desire is not a bad thing. As long as one chooses legal means with moral sanction to achieve one’s desires there is nothing wrong with having them. If I may use hyperbole, if you want to coat your roof with gold and you have the means to do so, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

so if you want to coat your roof with gold, you have every right to.

but what if i want to paint the moon gold.

practically, the only thing preventing me is the fact that i can't afford to do so.

okay, suppose i can. next step, government legislation.

but under an ideal anarcho-capitalist setup, there should be no government.

so am i advocating minimalist government? i think so. am wondering how comfortable i am with the idea.

every compromise is one step away from "big brother" or "nike on the moon".

so i guess what i am saying is that there are no political ideals. there's just what works and what doesn't. i'll stand by my earlier views on capitalism and maintain minimal government as necessary.

just wondering what everyone else thinks. specially the anarchists