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.