Lets look at Taiwan, though it's not really a country it pretty much should be because China doesn't mess with it and it's known for it's free market trade. Basically a Free-Market capitalist country.... the poverty percentage at 0.95%.

Slovakia, a Free-Market capitalist country - 2.4%

Let's look at the country with the highest poverty percentage... the UK, I don't think I need to tell you of their large govn't regulations and high taxes: "The poverty line in the UK is commonly defined as being 60% of the median household income.[193] In 2007-2008, 13.5 million people, or 22% of the population, lived below this line. This is a higher level of relative poverty than all but four other EU members.[194] In the same year, 4.0 million children, 31% of the total, lived in households below the poverty line, after housing costs were taken into account."
<a class="link" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Economy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Economy </a>

God, even France is realizing socialism = bad and less regulation = good:
"France's economy combines extensive private enterprise (nearly 2.5 million companies registered)[38][39] with substantial (though declining[40]) government intervention (see dirigisme). The government retains considerable influence over key segments of infrastructure sectors, with majority ownership of railway, electricity, aircraft, and telecommunications firms.[40] It has been gradually relaxing its control over these sectors since the early 1990s.[40] The government is slowly selling off holdings in France Télécom, Air France, as well as the insurance, banking, and defence industries.[40] France has an important aerospace industry led by the European consortium Airbus, and has its own national spaceport, the Centre Spatial Guyanais."

"However, dirigisme came to be highly contested after 1982 when newly elected socialist president François Mitterrand called for increased governmental control in the economy, nationalising many industries and private banks. By 1983 with the initial bad economic results[citation needed] the government decided to renounce dirigisme and start the era of rigueur ("rigour") or corporatization. As a result the government largely retreated from economic intervention; dirigisme has now essentially receded though some of its traits remain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France#Economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_France

Though France would be even better without any regulation at all. But whatever, ignore the evidence I guess.

Added (10/Dec/09, 1:54 Am)
---------------------------------------------

Added (10/Dec/09, 1:55 Am)
---------------------------------------------
And also, chill out, jesus!! gettin all butthurt over a dang debate.

I don't think specialized decision every time involves the whole business specialists do their own work as non-specialized workers do their own nobody actually tells you how to do your work . Decisions in collectives are purely administrative .

Laws won't exist in anarcho-capitalism because there will be no law-making bodies and if they will exist then there are governments or some kind of governments . Once again as my dilemma about private property and the PDA's another dilemma arises. There are 3 problems that i pointed out about anarcho-capitalism that no one answered yet.

1. My Dilemma about the right to own private property.
2. My dilemma about laws which can go hand in hand whit point 1 because there is a law-making body that grants and creates both point 1 and 2.
3. PDA's and public protection . A family or an individual is impossible to have the capital to hire a PDA to protect his whole neighborhood and the parks where his or hers children play. Collective capital is needed for that and collective capital existing in anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron .

Added (10/Dec/09, 10:38 Am)
---------------------------------------------

Quote (Menace)

Laws won't exist in anarcho-capitalism because there will be no law-making bodies and if they will exist then there are governments or some kind of governments . Once again as my dilemma about private property and the PDA's another dilemma arises. There are 3 problems that i pointed out about anarcho-capitalism that no one answered yet.

1. My Dilemma about the right to own private property.
2. My dilemma about laws which can go hand in hand whit point 1 because there is a law-making body that grants and creates both point 1 and 2.
3. PDA's and public protection . A family or an individual is impossible to have the capital to hire a PDA to protect his whole neighborhood and the parks where his or hers children play. Collective capital is needed for that and collective capital existing in anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron .

1. i forget your dilemma, sorry, debating two people at once can be confusing, lol.
2.I don't know point 1 to answer that
3. What are you talking about? A family or individual is not expected to hire a PDA to protect his whole neighborhood. Each person would employ a PDA to protect their own property.

And is this really just to debate on the name Anarcho-capitalism? Is there really any need to? I'm starting to think that the whole thing is silly, who cares what the name is. It's still private companies taking individual jobs of the government and using them to provide a service.

Then you don't abolish the state you privatize it the state as in Max Weber's definition is still exists so then there is no anarcho in " anarcho" capitalism . So you came to my conclusion your tradition is not anarchist.

Demand for what ?? dude we are not talking about economics here in particular if there is a law making body there is a state even if you don't call it one . Legislation (or "statutory law") or law making body is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body, or the process of making it. In some jurisdictions legislation must be confirmed by the executive branch of government before it enters into force as law. Primary legislation may delegate to the executive or other parties limited powers to make secondary legislation, such as Rules, Regulations and Orders which implement its policy in detail. If you give this same power to the private sector you don't actually ABOLISH the freaking state you PRIVATIZE it . Again you come to my conclusion there is no anarcho in " anarcho" capitalism .

That's what i was referring in point one , i will quote you J breakz from our previous debate which remained unsettled and still i have no answer this is what you said " Ok, I understand that. If an agency guaranteed property rights than it would be a government, no? " . Starting from this every entity that guarantees the right to own property is a government . Property rights are given by a state trough various bills and acts. Any entity that grants such rights and has legislative power is a STATE . You can deny this J breakz. There is a paradox in this " anarcho" capitalism of yours this is my first dilemma who's gonna guarantee private property rights in "anarcho" capitalism ?

FREAKING YES !!! so PDA's don't provide PUBLIC PROTECTION . that is my point man . Public safety is non existent in an "anarcho" capitalist society . Nobody protects our community our streets our parks anything . Don't you think such thing is fucked up ? that public protection is neglected ? what parent can raise a child in a community where there is no public protection how can the parent let his kid go out and play whit his friends in the park or whatever place.

But omg, why are we arguing over a name? From 'a' meaning 'without' and 'arch' meaning rulers + capitalism meaning an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned. Thus capitalism without rulers, a name is created because when a normal person hears for the first time anarcho-capitalism it makes sense.

dude any legislative body is a state check Max Weber's modern definition of that includes that you can deny it all day but a state is a state even if you privatize it and have no taxes . State functions still exist in your society the former institutions of the state are privatized and the state transforms itself into a huge private compnay whit more bureaucracy and more centralization of wealth and power . The market and competition doesn't stop CEO's from having dictatorial powers.

People are ruled by bosses by CEO's by companies by laws by your privatized government etc. Its an oxymoron to say that people aren't RULE under anarcho-capitalism . The only time people aren't ruled is when there is total direct democracy in Proudhon's words "the true meaning of the word 'democracy'" is the "dismissal of government."

Ok so respond to this now who's gonna guarantee private property rights in "anarcho" capitalism ?

Added (10/Dec/09, 6:16 Pm)
---------------------------------------------

it is important because it's more than just a name. that name let's us know what it really is. if it inherently goes against the crux of anarchism, then it isn't anarchist in nature, and we would argue that anything that doesn't allow direct power to individuals and get rid of hierarchy (basically the crux of anarchist thought) is not going to allow us to achieve the best possible situation for society as a whole.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Ever since the genetic modification of the soy bean, more and more farmers have converted to the "improved" soy plant. But some farmers haven't. Through natural events, the genetically modified soy plants pollinate the unmodified plants owned by the farmers who haven't converted over. BUT GUESS WHAT? Beings the corporation discovered the gene that modifies the plant they get to patent their discovery. AND GUESS WHAT. They have made it illegal to posses their "property" without purchase. So when these farmers end up with cross pollinated crops, GUESS WHO THE FUCK GETS SUED AND PUT OUT OF BUSINESS???

1. If knowledge could be harvested and transferred through machines into human brains, what do you think would happen to this technology in a capitalistic society?

A. It would be offered by the government for free to everyone
B. It would be offered by the government for a fee to everyone
C. Everyone will be allowed to purchase a knowledge machine and have it in their home
D. Corporations would turn it into a fucking expensive ass commodity (like gasoline)

2. If someone discovered the fountain of infinite youth and could infinitely harvest life to be distributed to lifeforms as simple as scooping it into a cup and drinking it, what do you think would happen to this discovery in a capitalistic society?

A. It would be routed to come out of everyone's faucet at home
B. Everyone could run down to their local clinic and get some life for free
C. The Government would regulate it so that the most in need gets it first for free or for a fee
D. Insurance companies would exploit the discovery and charge unbelievable rates, eventually pretending that the infinite harvest of infinite youth is running out so that they can charge even more

*Please give your answer in an uppercase letter.