Comments (18)

• Brent

  When you mention *movies* on Page #2, it is spelled "move" -- typo.

  Published: January 23, 2008 12:09 AM

• TLWP Sam

  In the spirit of anarchism the argument could then be put forward for any law - namely it's always restriction of some one's right and is probably full of unintended consequences? Take law against assualt and battery. This law is supposed to protect the innocent person against the violent marauder yet can easily trap an innocent person who defends themselves too well. Could then it be put forward that instead of having a law - people simply defend themselves at their own discretion and with the right to own/carry/use guns (it'd be easy if there are no laws, period) there is far greater disincentive for anyone to rob, bash, trespass, even murder?

  Published: January 23, 2008 12:25 AM

• Owen

  Child labor laws prevent children from being abused. In New Zealand there is no minimum age at present but almost everyone objects to children under the age of 13 working in paid employment.

  I think 16 might be too old for the age limit personally.

  Published: January 23, 2008 2:04 AM

• David C

  Stephen Landsburg devoted a whole chapter to this issue in his recent book 'more sex is safer sex'. OK he's not an Austrian, but the core of his argument on this subject, which he bases in th ethird-world context, should sit very well with Austrians. ( as an aside, I doubt his 'safe sex' argument would find favour in a catholic forum on moral grounds, but thats not the point here).

  
  Bottom line: child labour is a widespread human response to extreme poverty*. And in that context, if children are PROHIBITED from working at all, they ( and their parents) WILL be worse off than they would be if they were permitted to work.

  when wealth and family income grows, the incidence of child labour naturally declines in direct proportion. and after all, by and large parents try to do whats best for their children ( and they are always in the best position to know what IS best , given their knowledge of their circumstances. Ifd you are on the other side of th eplanet, not even a PHD can put you in their shoes). If the only choice is between putting your child to work, or letting him starve, what would you do?

  So rich western do-gooders who eschew products form countries because 'they use child labour' are not doing those children any favours - quite the opposite, they are shutting off any opportunity to develop and escape the very need for these children to work! Bogus sentiment-driven moralism trumps human compassion once again. The avoidance of putting children to work is a luxury only comparitively rich people can afford.

  In the modern Western context, I see no essential difference between a child being given household chores like feeding pets, washing dishes, sweeping paths, or taking out the garbage, and working for pecuniary remuneration, whether for their parents or anyone else. Both types of task involve effort , and indeed, the former doesnt even have a direct have a reward. So by the standards of the anti-child labour lobby, shouldn't parents who give their children chores to do be prosecuted for child abuse?

  in my mid-teens, I used to deliver newspapers daily, after school, for a small wage which was a very useful addition to the miserable allowance my parents deemed appropriate. I did it willingly, indeed sought the job out, and while it took me longer than 2 hours a day at first, once I had the route and delivery stops mapped out properly and changed the route for efficiency, I could knock it off in 30 minutes flat on my bicycle. Money for jam, and taught me well about the relationship between work , efficiency, and reward.

  that sort of 'learning earning ' opportunity is denied to kids nowadays ( At least in SOuth Africa) , because the newspaper distributors dont have the option of employing schoolkids for this task any longer.

  the mantra that 'child labour laws are necessary to prevent children from being abused' is an inherently weak argument. To outlaw it altogether to prevent the possibility of a child being forced to work against his or his parents will is no different to outlawing automobiles because some drivers might crash them and cause damage. Prohibition didnt work either, that too was the same sort of thing.

  * and indeed, absent civilisation, that was the natural order - in primitive huntergatherer societies even today, children engage in various essential tasks to the extent they are able to perform them, and this adoption of real work often begins as soon as they can walk. This was necessary for both the group/family's overall efficiency, and an important learning ground for skills that will be required when they are adults.

  Published: January 23, 2008 4:32 AM

• Curt Howland

  The site wouldn't let me post this reply, likely a site that depends upon Internet Exploder.

  My family ran a "retreat", a large home rented to groups who then had quick access to the ski slope next door. Well, someone had to take care of things, clean, do maintenance on the house and vehicles, keep the grounds, take out the trash. That was me. From 12 to 18, I worked my tail off at times, and was "paid" in books, a computer of my own, things like that. I did some illicit dishwashing on the side, too.

  Then at 16, I finally got a "real" job at a "ranch" where vacationers could rent horses and snowmobiles, for $10/10-hours/day mucking stalls and refueling in the snow. So far below minimum wage as to be crazy, except that it was $20/weekend that I would not have otherwise had. And they provided lunch. Life skills? Heck, I can fix almost anything and I arrive on time for work no matter how unpleasant that work may be. My employers have been universally pleased, and came to rely upon me very quickly in every job I've had. Being an outlaw in my youth has been one of the most profitable aspects of my life.

  The equation of sex and "underage" working may simply be the result of making "underage" working illegal. Since it's illegal already, why stop there? No one smuggles asperin, there's no point in doing so. Gangs don't make their money setting up and violently defending asperin distribution territories. But when alcohol was illegal, those who dealt in alcohol were the worst kinds of violent predators. Same now with "controlled substances". Why is anyone surprised that "child labor" wouldn't be subject to the same predatory/economic forces once it is made illegal, just like everything else?
  

  Published: January 23, 2008 9:53 AM

• Inquisitor

  "In the spirit of anarchism the argument could then be put forward for any law - namely it's always restriction of some one's right and is probably full of unintended consequences? Take law against assualt and battery. This law is supposed to protect the innocent person against the violent marauder yet can easily trap an innocent person who defends themselves too well. Could then it be put forward that instead of having a law - people simply defend themselves at their own discretion and with the right to own/carry/use guns (it'd be easy if there are no laws, period) there is far greater disincentive for anyone to rob, bash, trespass, even murder?"

  There is no such thing as a 'law' against murder under anarchy. However, a murderer cannot coherently object to being punished because he has violated another's rights, and pro tanto he cannot expect others to respect any rights he may have. This in effect replicates a law against murder, and justifies its existence. There is no analogous reasoning behind prohibiting a voluntary exchange between consenting individuals.

  Published: January 23, 2008 9:54 AM

• Person

  Curt_Howland: You forgot to mention that one downside of that job was that it rendered you incapable of accurately reading my posts. All in all, not a bad tradeoff, I guess you could say, but I think people need to be aware of the costs of taking on jobs like that.

  Published: January 23, 2008 2:20 PM

• Reformed Republican

  Person,
  I think that is more of a reflection on the content of your posts.

  Published: January 23, 2008 2:28 PM

• Daniel M. Ryan

  It would be more accurate to say that child labour laws relieve parents of certain responsibilities, come to think of it.

  The following point may seem ironic, but nosy and/or inquisitive parents would make out rather well in a no-child-labour-laws regime. Simply hearing their child say that (s)he got a job offer would produce a thorough, if informal, inquiry. The only kind of parent that would unambiguously lose would be the too-trusting type, or the kind that would rather not involve him- or herself in close supervision of his/her child. To be blunt about it, the acquisitive wings of high-flying couples in the corporate world would most likely be clipped, or their children would be the ones zeroed in on by any miscreant.

  The above should imply something about the feasability of such a measure, or the legislative blowback that would result from its implementation.

  Published: January 23, 2008 4:01 PM

• TLWP Sam

  I think you missed my point Inquisitor. I put forward a few questions:

  1. Showing laws can backfire and take away individual responsibility can that mean every law is pointless?

  2. The nature of a law imply a higher authority - a State, if some see the State/person as an imposed Strict Parent/Child then are all laws demeaning?

  3. Of course in a state of anarhism, there are no higher powers therefore no laws. The would-be criminal need only fear the victim's potential retaliation or that of the victim's family. But might this in fact be a bigger deterrant since there are no laws especially against gun ownership?

  Published: January 23, 2008 8:47 PM

• Curt Howland

  "Person", I'm not misreading you. You are just wrong. A much simpler explanation.

  Published: January 24, 2008 2:54 PM

• Peter

  TLWP Sam: you think the law of gravity requires a state to function? :)

  Published: January 24, 2008 10:34 PM

• Sasha Radeta

  Child labor is another issue (right next to the issue of copyright) where popular libertarian websites argue against the theory of common law contracts (perhaps even against common sense). This is very harmful for the movement, because it puts a negative light on otherwise perfectly sound ideology.

  Going back to legal theory of labor: we, libertarians/anarchists, all agree that prostitution should be legal, don't we? If that is the case, arguing in favor of child labor practices is logically equal to arguing in favor of the child prostitution. Actually, the basic defense of the legal prostitution is the fact that this enterprise is normally conducted among the consenting ADULTS, who are capable of forming such valid market contracts. If you argue that children should be allowed to negotiate and enter labor contracts, there is no reason for you to argue that the "oldest profession" should be exempt.

  We all believe in enforceable contracts, because they are the basic pillar of market exchanges don't we? Yet, common law that had risen from centuries of those exchanges tells us that contract is VOID if one side has restricted capacity to negotiate or enforce such contracts. Mentally disabled individuals, as well as children, are classic examples of this legal doctrine. Labor contracts and their total costs (including the opportunity costs of children pursuing education) are serious enough to make child labor agreements void without a doubt.

  Much of Mr. Tucker's article misses the core of the issue. The faith of poor "child-stars" and the fact that the state also exploits child labor does not prove in any way that such practices should be supported by libertarians.

  The fact that women's textile unions argued in favor of child textile laws is completely irrelevant. If child prostitution was legal, perhaps women's prostitute union would be lobbying against children's involvement in this market. However, this should not suggest that libertarians should start joining N.A.B.L.A., just like we should not support child abuse in any other form.

  Kind regards,
  

  Published: January 27, 2008 7:31 AM

• Sasha Radeta

  TLWP said:

  "Of course in a state of anarhism, there are no higher powers therefore no laws.

  Voluntary associations DO have laws and regulations and in a state of anarchism there would be no way of prohibiting individuals from entering into these voluntary association.

  If a powerful group starts committing violence and trespass against week individuals, we can expect that these individuals will start to organize into an association. They could either enter a contract with another powerful group which would protect them in exchange for money or obedience to their rules (quasi-monarchy)... Or, these common people could decide to abandon this contract with their monarchs and lords (private protection agency) and they could form an association (with membership fees and laws) in which each and one of them will hold ownership stakes of that organization (quasi-republic and/or quasi-democracy) .

  Both of these outcomes are producing associations with some dues and laws/regulations.Serious free market anarchists would actually argue that the formation of these free-market state-like entities is the proof that free markets would produce more efficient and more just form of government = based on market competition and consumers' sovereignty.

  Many free marker anarchists point out that different nations live in a state of anarchy among themselves and there is absolutely no problem with that. Certain things that are legal in Malaysia are illegal in Indonesia, but these jurisdictions find a way to cooperate and to form rules that would prevent perpetual crimes between jurisdictions.

  Free market anarchists also praise the virtue of federalism as compared to centralism, because it allows people to achieve more freedom and to preserve their way of life more easily... The problems start when some groups, such as ethnic minorities, try to secede from their unions - and when they try to form another state from which other minorities cannot secede.

  What free market anarchist argue is that individual membership in these organizations must be voluntary and that every coercion against someone who wants to exit such arrangement is nothing but a crime. States cannot morally have a jurisdiction based on predetermined geographical boundaries, because the people, not the territories form these unions or jurisdictions. Hence, - as long as we truly have a voluntary taxation and freedom of association - free market anarchists see no problems with laws and jurisdictions.

  =======

  NOW... back to the subject: even if the United States of America did not keep its early promise of liberty, the fact that its laws punish some serious crimes (to some extent) - does not mean that libertarians should automatically start supporting the practices of these crimes. We can oppose the authority of the state without supporting crimes per se. An enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.

  Published: January 27, 2008 10:08 AM

• Inquisitor

  "1. Showing laws can backfire and take away individual responsibility can that mean every law is pointless?"

  A law that hasn't even got a moral justification behind it is pointless, period.

  "2. The nature of a law imply a higher authority - a State, if some see the State/person as an imposed Strict Parent/Child then are all laws demeaning?"

  No.

  "3. Of course in a state of anarhism, there are no higher powers therefore no laws. The would-be criminal need only fear the victim's potential retaliation or that of the victim's family. But might this in fact be a bigger deterrant since there are no laws especially against gun ownership?"

  Non sequitur.
  

  Published: January 27, 2008 8:57 PM

• irene

  Labor is the real issue here. Sooner are later the young ones have actually work rather than listen to mp3. I saw a funny t-shirt that said it all...Kids Need Work Too!
  http://www.tshirtsales.com/home.php
  Its so funny, but kids in the west are very lucky compared to those in asia

  Published: June 5, 2008 11:11 PM

• Juegos gratis de tragamonedas

  I think 16 is a little bit above, If it is giving the good results then it's ok.I am a resident of India, and here children specially from the rural areas strats working early under the pressure of their parents or any other reason and they have to work when they are underage.
  It is actually a sin, to spoil the life of the innocent children.
  

  Published: August 2, 2008 12:36 AM

• Alexander S. Peak

  Spectacular article! I remember being ten and wanting to get a job. I remember being so extremely annoyed that I wasn't allowed to. I wanted freedom, I wanted this law off my back! Unfortunately, I had to wait years.

  Yours,
  Alex Peak

  Published: May 11, 2009 11:06 PM