Liberal Media?

[Cloud No.9]

sasquatch i believe seems tohink that all people should work for what they have no matter what they're age. or inherit the problems of their family. in which case he would have had me working at 12 to fund my own operation or wait until my parenst saved enough to pay for it for me just in time before i died (hopefully). becasue of course life is not a right in the capatalist mind, it is a commodity that has to be bought and paid for, and if you can't afford to keep your own health then it's left to rot like a car is to rust.

ps. and due to eu laws it is illegal to work more than 48 hours a week.

[Teek]

sasquatch i believe seems tohink that all people should work for what they have no matter what they're age. or inherit the problems of their family. in which case he would have had me working at 12 to fund my own operation or wait until my parenst saved enough to pay for it for me just in time before i died (hopefully). becasue of course life is not a right in the capatalist mind, it is a commodity that has to be bought and paid for, and if you can't afford to keep your own health then it's left to rot like a car is to rust.

ps. and due to eu laws it is illegal to work more than 48 hours a week.

Denouncing capitalism, which has given you this computer, among other things, is hardly what to start. Keep denouncing it and when we see the socialist regime return and you find that slave labor is preferrable (for the good of society, I'm sure) you can complain then. And seriously, you live in the EU, so it'll be soon, assuredly.

Everyone has the right to life in a capitalistic (i.e. free) society. It is any other form of government or control where that right has to be paid for. You have been brainwashed by your socialistic teachers. Disregard the idea that you will fail without governmental money, please, and recognize the supremecy of the human spirit. (And I'm not just talking to Cloud No. 9 here).

In regards to your statements, Cloud, I can only apply reason.

Your health can be be kept in decent standards by you, but you will need medical care. But if YOU don't pay for it, who will? ---At whose expense? ---Whose dollars? ---Whose life is below yours?

Things do take money. Humans are traders. Why would anyone waste money on you to receive nothing in return?

[Sasquatch]

Once again, attempts are made to interpret my beliefs...and once again, they become a miserable failure.

Obviously, there are age limits and child labor laws, and nobody is advocating that a minor or a child must work to support themself.

lordblazer--I'm not going to ask what field your father is in, because for one thing, it's not my business, and for another, I don't give a damn. However, I will point out that some fields have very little for demand--for instance, a Philosophy major in college will get somebody about nowhere. Just like there are some fields that will not only always have some demand, but currently have a very high demand--fields such as education and nursing. On that note, there are some fields that were in high demand for the last generation, and currently have very little demand at all, just as there are fields that are in high demand now that weren't even on the table in our parents' time.

As for inherited debt, they have a solution to that nowadays. This newfangled stuff called life insurance, I believe--it's remarkable stuff, it really is. See, what you do is pay a small amount every month for this stuff, and when you die, it gives the people you leave behind enough money to pay for your funeral costs, the debts you leave behind, and usually more. I myself have SGLI, which gives me a quarter million dollars when I die but costs only twenty bucks a month--and if I was sixty years old and smoked like a chimney, I could get the same thing. And even though that's through the military, there are plenty of other organizations out there that offer this stuff with decent rates. Or, there's always the option of, well, not racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of debt. But oh, we can't do that now, can we?

Also--along with unemployment, finding jobs, etc.--there's the idea of actually saving money, so when you fall upon hard times--get laid off, injured, acquire new expenses, etc.--you have money to fall back on, instead of living paycheck-to-paycheck. However, again, that might require working a little bit more, not spending so much on semi-luxuries, putting away a little nest egg, maybe planning ahead a little bit.

There's also this stuff--health insurance, they call it--where, just like life insurance, you pay a certain amount every month, then if you need to go to the doctor/hospital/etc., you pay a small amount instead of the entire bill. Having this stuff helps to protect against getting the sniffles and going flat broke paying your doctor bills. Again, by planning ahead and getting a decent career, or at least a full-time job, that provides benefits, sometimes the employer will provide a good deal for life insurance. If not, there are ways to independently get health insurance.

Of course life is a right, even to us eeeeevil Capitalists. However, a line must be drawn between the health of every citizen and the freedom of those citizens to keep the money they earn without having it confiscated by the government to provide services for those who are able but not responsible enough to find ways to provide their own health care.

[Cloud No.9]

i'm actually from a somewhat socialist (stateless) nation. and yeah it's working out fairly fine. we're not starving over here. i personally like the idea of not having to pay to ensure i don't die. i find it very selfish of people to refuse to help others. "this girls got leukimia can we get a cent in every dollar" "no cos i want a new SUV and i've been saving really hard" "but she's gonna die" "awww who cares it's my money i'll do what i want she can pay for it herself" "no she can't she can't afford that level of treatment" "well she would have worked harder" "she's 12" "that's her parents fault then that she's gonna die " *man then goes to buy his new suv*

and why in america is everything based around this stupid idea of insurance to actually pay for stuff if you are starving, dying or sick. yeah cos that's a great idea........... everyone benefits from state paid health care, education, wefare, pensions. you use some, i use some. i probably use the nhs more than most people (i'm actually a huge drain but meh, like i'm gonna die for someone's taxes), but then another person might need housing benefit, welfare, a state funeral. and who am i to complain? he paid part of my operations i made sure he wasn't homeless and didn't starve. he take a litle you give a little back. you don't greedily horde your money for yourself and that new tv.

life's a gamble and the welfare state takes care of this. it gives everyone an equal playing field rather than an inhrieted class.

and to think that someone's income tax is worth more than my life or anyone else's life hachifusa is not steady ground to stand on. to say it's to someone's expense to keep my a life and the above girl with leukhmia from dying at the age of 12 is frankly just a little selfish.

[Teek]

Before I begin, I would like to say that I did not mean to offend anyone.

i'm actually from a somewhat socialist (stateless) nation. and yeah it's working out fairly fine. we're not starving over here. i personally like the idea of not having to pay to ensure i don't die. i find it very selfish of people to refuse to help others. "this girls got leukimia can we get a cent in every dollar" "no cos i want a new SUV and i've been saving really hard" "but she's gonna die" "awww who cares it's my money i'll do what i want she can pay for it herself" "no she can't she can't afford that level of treatment" "well she would have worked harder" "she's 12" "that's her parents fault then that she's gonna die " *man then goes to buy his new suv*

We've said it before, and we'll say it again - You are confusing charity with stealing. There is no way around it. They do not beg we selfish capitalists for money. They rip it from our hands. We produce (we, the people) and the needy steal it, and if we don't like it they laugh at us and call us selfish and greedy. smurf that. And - for the record, the freest country in the world, America? We're doing better for you. We're feasting over here.

and why in america is everything based around this stupid idea of insurance to actually pay for stuff if you are starving, dying or sick. yeah cos that's a great idea........... everyone benefits from state paid health care, education, wefare, pensions. you use some, i use some. i probably use the nhs more than most people (i'm actually a huge drain but meh, like i'm gonna die for someone's taxes), but then another person might need housing benefit, welfare, a state funeral. and who am i to complain? he paid part of my operations i made sure he wasn't homeless and didn't starve. he take a litle you give a little back. you don't greedily horde your money for yourself and that new tv.

No, you use your money to cover your own interests. If you have extra, you can use it on a number of things that are important to you. If someone wastes money on toys, let them use it on toys - when they need more money, they will have failed. You do not loot it for the benefit of society. That is not cool. That was his money that he made. Let him spend it as he wants.

life's a gamble and the welfare state takes care of this. it gives everyone an equal playing field rather than an inhrieted class.

I hear this from socalists all the time. All it translates to is "We humans are unable to deal with the ups and downs of life and therefore give the government the power to make the decisions for us. That way, no one is able to go beyond the power of the mediocre.

And there are no inherited classes in America, or any free society.

and to think that someone's income tax is worth more than my life or anyone else's life hachifusa is not steady ground to stand on. to say it's to someone's expense to keep my a life and the above girl with leukhmia from dying at the age of 12 is frankly just a little selfish.

Let's say you're dying on the street.

I have plenty of money, and I recognize that you are a good person who needs help. I have a extra money because we live in a free society and I am able to work the best of my ability. You have health insurance, which is cheap because other parasite nations don't exist - the world is equally free. However, you don't quite have enough. I recognize this and gladly pay off the rest, and hope for your well-being. In return, I get to see that someone gets to live, and it makes me feel better. Maybe you pay me back - maybe not - either way, I've recieved my payment.

Now let's say we live in a socialsitc world that is dying from everyone being each others' slave.

You're on the street, dying. I have no money, as I trudge to another job - I work eighty hours a week because the starving people of Malyasia (or France, or Sudan - it doesn't matter) need the help of the people and in the spirit of brotherhood we all are working twice as hard. You are going to recieve the second-rate, free medical care (that was paid for by everyone around you), but you are on a waiting list to get in. You scream in insolence that it is my duty to help you, that we are all our brothers' keepers, that I am selfish if I don't give you extra money while I have a starving child and wife at home. But I keep walking, because I have my own problem. Ignoring the basic premise of personal responsbility and freedom, I utter a horrific phrase, showing no conern for human life, "Let the State care for him. I have my own issues."

Sure, this is sensationalized. But I can't help but feel that selflessness is far worse than selfishness! I care too much -and expect too much -for the lives around me to go to a welfare state.

[Cloud No.9]

"and the needy steal it" that sums up my view of capitalism and it's followers. the needy steal it? why are the needy stealing it? the fact that you refuse to see the good in helping the needy is why people call it greedy.

and america is far from the freeist country in the world. the idea that america calls itslef the freeist society reminds me so much of oceania. (book reference, sorry). and yes america is feasting...... one of it's societies many problems. it is not something to be proud of. gluttony and waste are not plue point for a soceity were many live below the poverty line.

letting a man spend all of his money how he wants without thoight for the good of society as a whole is known as laiisez-faire. a political though that is dead and rightly so. it consisted of leaded bread, dung heaps in cities, cholera, deaths in factories, child labour and other evils. it was not a good time. certain amounts of peoples money needs to be spent aiding the society they are part of.

you inheriet a class in all class systems. this happens in two ways. first of all buy what your paents can afford dictates your standard of living from ages 0-18, your education, health care, etc. no value is taken into how good you are, your merits, your abilities. you could be a proidigy born into a slum ridden family. you will go to an underfunded state school, if you get ill you will need to get better slowly and naturally or your parents will get into debt. in a socialist soceity this doesn't happen.

you can inheriet a class in the class system manner which is seperate but totally unconnected but i will go into for completeness. i am upper lower class because my family is uppper lower class. if i perform well in life i could drop to middle lower class. i can not however ever become lower lower class (the underclass). it is a state of mind. if i perform well i could become as high as upper middle class. i could however never become upper class. i couldn't fit into the aristocracy. this class system is not based on money, it is a society grouo. for instance bill gates not upper class, he is still middle class. the queen is upper class, lords are upper class, lawyers and doctors are middle class. does that make sense to people who aren't used to the society class system?

also socialist society's do not mean poorer quality. look at cuba's education system and health care. superior to everything we have here. and everyone is entitled to it? isn't that what we should be aiming for? the pro's of cuban society? for absolutley everyone to be given the best chances in life as a birth right?

[Teek]

Did they teach you these things in school? o_O

[Cloud No.9]

well half my history education was british econimic. (the being german unification - 39)

[Teek]

Ok, well, might as well address this.

"and the needy steal it" that sums up my view of capitalism and it's followers. the needy steal it? why are the needy stealing it? the fact that you refuse to see the good in helping the needy is why people call it greedy.

Please understand what I am arguing. This is really more than a political philosophy. You are advocating that the end justifies the means. The question is, no matter how much the poor might "need", say, Bill Gates' money, do they have the right to rip it from his "greedy", capitalist hands? Can stealing and murder and all manner of horrific ideas be justified?

No. They cannot. Not for any so-called "noble" cause nor because of the state of the poor.

and america is far from the freeist country in the world. the idea that america calls itslef the freeist society reminds me so much of oceania. (book reference, sorry). and yes america is feasting...... one of it's societies many problems. it is not something to be proud of. gluttony and waste are not plue point for a soceity were many live below the poverty line.

Please give me one country that grants more freedom to the individual, so that I can forsake America and move there.

And the rest of the world can feast, too. Unfortuantely, the governments of those countries are robbing their people blind to "line their own damn pockets with gold" (sorry, game reference =P).

letting a man spend all of his money how he wants without thoight for the good of society as a whole is known as laiisez-faire. a political though that is dead and rightly so. it consisted of leaded bread, dung heaps in cities, cholera, deaths in factories, child labour and other evils. it was not a good time. certain amounts of peoples money needs to be spent aiding the society they are part of.

Lassiez-faire capitalism has never existed. The United States, at conception, got very close - but unfortunately, welfare-statist tactics got involved, loopholes with the Constitution were found, and now America is more or less the same as every other country in the world - a mixed economy. Granted, we're doing better because we lean closer to capitalism, but really that's going to fall, as sad as it is.

Do not cite those things and blame capitalism. It was all that the country could afford at the time. Free trade would not bring back those things, of course.

And certainly, taxation is necessary. However, when government has been brought down to where it belongs - as merely a retaliatory force - then the amount of taxation needn't be so high (not to mention that all other forms of taxes spare sales tax would be abolished). An "income tax" destroys America. Look at how we're going to hell today.

you inheriet a class in all class systems. this happens in two ways. first of all buy what your paents can afford dictates your standard of living from ages 0-18, your education, health care, etc. no value is taken into how good you are, your merits, your abilities. you could be a proidigy born into a slum ridden family. you will go to an underfunded state school, if you get ill you will need to get better slowly and naturally or your parents will get into debt. in a socialist soceity this doesn't happen.

You're contradicting yourself. "Underfunded state school" is a product of socialism. If the government was at its natural level, "state schools" would be illegal. Notice how our school system is lower than it should be - this is because the State deals with it. Have you never heard about the people who rose out of poverty? That is only possible in America. Ask yourself if it is possible in a statist government. Prodigies are canned from the start.

you can inheriet a class in the class system manner which is seperate but totally unconnected but i will go into for completeness. i am upper lower class because my family is uppper lower class. if i perform well in life i could drop to middle lower class. i can not however ever become lower lower class (the underclass). it is a state of mind. if i perform well i could become as high as upper middle class. i could however never become upper class. i couldn't fit into the aristocracy. this class system is not based on money, it is a society grouo. for instance bill gates not upper class, he is still middle class. the queen is upper class, lords are upper class, lawyers and doctors are middle class. does that make sense to people who aren't used to the society class system?

Sure it makes sense. But who in the hell cares? Free trade - and individual rights - destroys class system mentality.

also socialist society's do not mean poorer quality. look at cuba's education system and health care. superior to everything we have here. and everyone is entitled to it? isn't that what we should be aiming for? the pro's of cuban society? for absolutley everyone to be given the best chances in life as a birth right?

Well, first off, Cuba's health care isn't superior to America's system.

The only system that can give the "greatest good to the greatest number" is capitalism. Socialism can be seen at first as what one should aim for, but once you realize that it ultimately fails as seeing people as people and seeing people as a member of the collective, all of its fallacies appear. Everyone has the best chances in a free society. If I was born to a poor family, I could rise above it the best to my ability.

By and by, are you American?

[ShunNakamura]

Well all I got to say is without state funded schools my education would be nill. Which wouldn't make me very happy. And class does in fact exist in america. The Uppers Uppers the WASPs etc.. you know you gotta be born rich to be one of them? Of course after hearing some of them talk.. I don't think I want to be one of them. ever.

The problem isn't the programs. It is the fact that our government does such a god awful job running them. Our government is too hampered by buercracy and the like to run effeciently.


Also not all state schools are bad, meaning a state funded education that is competitive is perfectly possible... we just gotta fix what is wrong.

And as for the ends right the means. You do see how willing many rich are to "rob" the poor and keep them down? In a society where most people enjoyed helping others the system your propose would definately be best. In our system with people more worried about money they anything else... well people will screw each other over.


Actually I got a story that my teacher tells often due to the fact that as he put it, "I see this all the time." What is it he sees?

When in college he worked at a Deli as a delievery boy. Every time he went to a house that had money and where the people would lavishly spend, the owners would rarely tip and when they did it was a very poor one. One guy would even sit there and recount the change several times to make sure he got every penny back. Now when he delievered to the working class he on occasion would get 5-10$ tips. One person who constantly gave tips wished my teach good luck getting enough to get through college.

This is obviousally just one area... but it scares me that the working class seem to be more willing to help others, possibly cause they know it can be difficult to make it through certian times.. so if they have the extra money, why not help another?

We actually did even more indepth on that in our sociology class.. and it shocked me at the differences between america's social classes.. that is bit deeper then I originally thought. At least aren't a caste class system.

[Gnostic Yevon]

Yes, but in America class seems to be determined only by money. If you get enough of it, you move up. The thing is that in most societies, for the majority of people -- you stay the class that your parents did. There are exceptions, we aren't like India with a caste society, and an exceptional individual can climb the ranks. But if you take an average student in the inner city at random, chances are fairly good that 15 years later, they'll still be inner-city and working a blue-collar job. Same thing if you took an average student from a richer area. 15 years later chances are fairly good that the student will be working a white-collar job and living in the suburbs. So I'm not sure that it's exactly the "class system" that you're talking about.

[Teek]

Yes, but in America class seems to be determined only by money. If you get enough of it, you move up. The thing is that in most societies, for the majority of people -- you stay the class that your parents did. There are exceptions, we aren't like India with a caste society, and an exceptional individual can climb the ranks. But if you take an average student in the inner city at random, chances are fairly good that 15 years later, they'll still be inner-city and working a blue-collar job. Same thing if you took an average student from a richer area. 15 years later chances are fairly good that the student will be working a white-collar job and living in the suburbs. So I'm not sure that it's exactly the "class system" that you're talking about.

If there is a class system, then that is not the product of a vile, evil capitalistic state (oh, the horror!), but humanity.

Like all things, people like that take basic premises that America (and any free, capitalistic state) lie on and pervert it. We have the right to pursue happiness, so they claim that happiness is theirs by right (which is obviously incorrect). They have the inalienable right to deal with whomever they wish -to decide between two people whether they want to work together- but then they claim that they should have a 9-5 job by right. The question is, "By what right?"

It's the same premise with the talks of class system. Yes, there is a class system in America, based on wealth. Fundamentally, rich people do not have more rights, but because of their wealth they are able to do more because they produce more. Don't like the rich - due to envy? Strive to become rich. Aim as high as you can. More than likely you could be a millionaire. If you're not, chances are you don't want to.

Like Gnostic Yeven said, we are not India's caste system. Bill Gates was born upper-middle class, and now he is the richest American alive. My dad was born to a family on welfare, a family of six in a one-bedroom apartment, and now we live in upper-middle class society. People have the options to go where they want.

At least, they do by rights - which means, that their rights are only possible in a free society.

[Cloud No.9]

actuslly cuba does have a better education system. first proof of this is the highest literacy rate in the world. and the doctors they produce for thier high quality health service.

laissez-faire existed in britain until about the 1880's when it statred to tail off. (liberals started the welfare state)

murder and theft can be justified be some people. so can torture if you take what people say on this forum. so yeah people will justify what they see fit.

you mention the government as purely intended for defence and war. this was actually the reason for the creation of the welafre state.....

sorry i need to give another lesson. back in the 19th century britian fough the crimean war. it found that alot of the conscripts were under-nourished, disease and flea ridden and were not acceptable to fight. this opened the eyes to some people that alot of people were very sick and dying and as such without them the country could not fight wars like it used to (urbanisation and industralisation also highlighted this). it saw that something was needed to keep the people healthy so they were fight enough to defend their country. the foundations of the welfare state were created by the liberals to combat this. and so things began to transform into what they are today.

to say that africa could feast right now is frankly disgusting.

an under funding only exists if the funding does not. make the funding exist (tax the beurgoise) and things will stop being so poor for the impoverished.

are you saying that if you want to be a millionaire and work hard enough you will become one? that's why so many are on the dole? because they don't want to become millionaires? they just want to live below the poverty line?

capitalism only reinforces the class system. look at where my country was 100 years ago and tell me that everyon was equal.

you can rise above your class and stature only with the right education. and you will not recieve this if you are in an impoverished family who cannot pay for private schooling. poor schools make poor results. invest more and you will get more out.

no i'm not american i'm scottish (hence why half my history course is based around britain).

class is ot based on wealth. no matter how much you earn you will not become a member of the aristocracy.

happiness is a right as a human being. to work is a right as well. to say people do not have a right to work and no right to be happy is what hitler said about the jews at nuremburg.

capitalism does not promise freedom and so does not promise rights.

(sorry the replies are a little chopped up and all over the place)

[Teek]

actuslly cuba does have a better education system. first proof of this is the highest literacy rate in the world. and the doctors they produce for thier high quality health service.

I checked into this. The United States has a 97% literacy rate. ...strangely enough, so does Cuba, the exact number. While I could argue a few things, and I'm sure you could too, this is almost a moot point by default, so we'll drop this, eh?

laissez-faire existed in britain until about the 1880's when it statred to tail off. (liberals started the welfare state)

It wasn't laissez-faire because it wasn't entirely free. Just as in America it was the same. Besides, I'm more or less advocating for a free society around the charts. The British government clearly controls the people's freedom of press, among other things. It's true that Britain was very capitalistic, but it was never pure, uncontrolled laissez-faire capitalism.

murder and theft can be justified be some people. so can torture if you take what people say on this forum. so yeah people will justify what they see fit.

Does that make this right?

you mention the government as purely intended for defence and war. this was actually the reason for the creation of the welafre state.....

sorry i need to give another lesson. back in the 19th century britian fough the crimean war. it found that alot of the conscripts were under-nourished, disease and flea ridden and were not acceptable to fight. this opened the eyes to some people that alot of people were very sick and dying and as such without them the country could not fight wars like it used to (urbanisation and industralisation also highlighted this). it saw that something was needed to keep the people healthy so they were fight enough to defend their country. the foundations of the welfare state were created by the liberals to combat this. and so things began to transform into what they are today.

I said the government exists as a means to protects the citizens' rights. If we lived in pure anarchy, a man could shoot any other man without retaliation. A government exists as a means to make sure the people's rights aren't being infringed.

First off, that is semi-propoganda. It is a proven fact that the more capitalistic a society is the more productive the people are, the higher the living standard, etc. Making it seems that the people of a capitalistic society are flea-ridden and sick is sort of ...debatable. And if you need the fact to be proven in a general sense, please recall the Cold War - and ask yourself who won and why.

I believe in only a free, voluntary army - a conscription bill is unconstitutional (I'm using American terms, here. In the general sense, it violates man's rights.)

I also want to point something out. Here in the United States, socialism is regarded as evil by nearly everyone. Even those that advocate socialistic changes try to avoid the word "socialism". Our problem, as a whole, is that people apologize for being so individualistic. I mean, I was getting a totally different history lesson. The teachers taught that free societies were beneficial, even if they grumble under their breath that people need some control. I just thought it's funny you were taught so... how do you say... negatively on capitalism.

to say that africa could feast right now is frankly disgusting.

I think it's quite disgusting you'd rather Africa to starve.

an under funding only exists if the funding does not. make the funding exist (tax the beurgoise) and things will stop being so poor for the impoverished.

End justifies the means argument, again. Find another way. How about grant the poor the freedom they deserve and let them work for a living for their own personal wealth? Why reduce the poor to pawns for the State?

are you saying that if you want to be a millionaire and work hard enough you will become one? that's why so many are on the dole? because they don't want to become millionaires? they just want to live below the poverty line?

...more or less, yeah. Or that they are being taught that it's evil to acquire wealth, that the rich man is poor in spirit?

capitalism only reinforces the class system. look at where my country was 100 years ago and tell me that everyon was equal.

It was barely capitalism and not free. Is everyone happy now, being taxed out of hell for the government?

you can rise above your class and stature only with the right education. and you will not recieve this if you are in an impoverished family who cannot pay for private schooling. poor schools make poor results. invest more and you will get more out.

Public schooling is statist. That's a whole 'nother argument.

class is ot based on wealth. no matter how much you earn you will not become a member of the aristocracy.

America has no aristocracy. We don't have an old woman who throws a sword at people's shoulder to make them "better" human beings. That's clearly a violation of people's rights. All men are created equal.

happiness is a right as a human being. to work is a right as well. to say people do not have a right to work and no right to be happy is what hitler said about the jews at nuremburg.

My family is Jewish, you know. They escaped to America because they recognized they had the most chance in this country where the pursuit of happiness and the pursuit of welath, as rights, are preserved.

Happiness cannot be a right. Define a "right". "I have the right to be happy!" is only a half-truth. "I have the right to pursue happiness," is. If you have the right to a 9-5 job, I ask you - by what standard? -at whose expense? Who will you force to pay you?

capitalism does not promise freedom and so does not promise rights.

Capitalism is a free market. ...this is just a ridiculous argument, sorry, I don't even feel like addressing it.

(sorry the replies are a little chopped up and all over the place)

Quite all right.

[Cloud No.9]

laissez-faire in britain was pretty much entirely free. it had no legislation at all. people were selling leaded bread, building thoroughly poor housing which consisted of a single blank room, cholera was rife, children worked in factories, there was no health and safety legislation. the government had no control of the media at the time. (they still don't to a degree like any country) things havce changed dramatically since then. but be assured the days of dung heaps in london city centre were the hay days of laissez-faire. it was hugely free back then.

and regarding my piece on 19th century britain. that is how it was. the rich owned the factories, the manors. while the poor lived in the city and caught cholera and died. they were not acceptible to the army becauase they wee not nurished enough. it is far from debatble the state of the people in 19th century, it is historical fact. and the system they operated under? laissez-faire capitalism.

i would not rather africa starve. in fact if you look at my posts of recent in here you will see i am the greatest advocate for savinmg the african people. do not get me started on africa.

as previously stated 100 years ago my country was hugely capitalist and laissez-faire free. where the government didn't care about the lead content of bread nor the deaths in the cities for cholera water poisining. and everyone is far happier than they were then. cos people are entitled by right to a better life.

i'll explain schooling here. if you are poor (or middle earning really) you go to a state school. if you are richer and your parents wish they will send you to a private school. which has the better teachers, the less ruly pupils (no underclass), the better equipment etc. they get a better education basicly, based on what their parents earn. no more no less. a better chance (the biggest step you will get) in life because of inherited wealth not individual value.

yes america has a watered down class system. yet it still has a struggling underclass stuck in the poverty cycle.

how to define a human right? it is a right into which the government nor anyone else shall intervere (unless it's not a great right like if killing kids makes you happy). this means that the government not anyone else has no right to prevent you performing anything which makes you happy. nor shall it add in things which hinder in it unless again it is required. the right to a job is concrete. and it costs noone. if you work for someone, they produce more and so create more money out of which they pay you. it's not an expense or anything that needs to be forced. it is to the benefit of the employee and employer.

a free market does not gurantee a free people. free market do not gurantee rights at all. they are seperate entities. i can have a perfectly capitalist country while persecuting anyone i please. i just get lovely contractors to do it for me and dispose of everything. the economic, humanitarian and poltical are seperate.