Pokey!
10-16-2009, 09:14 PM
The best way to starve a people in a Third World nation is to have their government ratify laws forbidding child labor. Asking the typical man on the street would give one the impression that child labor was the birth child of the laissez-faire Industrial Revolution.
Far from being the “birth child” of evillll capitalist pigs, child labor has existed since the beginning of history. Requirements to live made its existence necessary. So credulous and ignorant are people that they cannot see that the only way, like in the United States, societies’ can “grow out” of child labor is to actually engage in capitalism to build up capital and increase production capabilities.
Government cannot magically transform a society to do this. The very life of government is a life of a parasite. No wishful thinking or hoping can transform a society except through the capitalist method. This method requires people to recognize the natural right of person and property. For this very reason, instead of booing capitalism, it should be cheered. It was not the State that ended child labor, but the capitalist pigs.
Although, I fail to see what is so intrinsically “evil” about child labor.
What is the capitalist method?
"Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at."
There you have it from the great Murray N. Rothbard.
A developing society with little to no capital requires more people in the labor force. This cannot be wished away. Low production output will require a larger supply of labor. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period. The way to change this is through capitalism. Capitalist advances in raising production capabilities will increase the output of labor.
What will this do? For one, it will free up labor into more productive activities. Obviously child labor becomes less and less a necessity. Secondly, it will, due to the disutility of labor (i.e., in a nutshell, people like and want leisure), increase leisure. (It is not government that allowed people to cut down the work week.)
Third Worlds
How is it possible that we can condemn the businessman that hired or today hires in Third World nations children, away from the worse alternative conditions of starvation, excessive and worse conditions of farm life, or prostitution? Instead of hissing capitalism we should be speaking well of it. We should thank the capitalists and innovators who were alone responsible for the evolving of us, here in the U.S., beyond the need for child labor.
It is deplorable for leftists and other all-around statists to demand an end to child labor. I would not call the very real alternative of a child entering prostitution or starving as something to be preferred to working in a factory.
Economist Ludwig von Mises in his giant Human Action describes the single way that Third Worlds can “evolve” out of child labor and out of less-than stellar working conditions:
"It is a sad fact indeed that in Asia many millions of tender children are destitute and starving, that wages are extremely low when compared with America or Western European standards, that hours of work are long, and that sanitary conditions in the workshops are deplorable. But there is not means of eliminating these evils other than to work, to produce, and to save more and thus to accumulate more capital. This is indispensable for any lasting improvement. The restrictive measures advocated by self-styled philanthropists and humanitarians would be futile. They would not only fail to improve conditions, they would make things a good deal worse. If the parents are too poor to feed their children adequately, prohibition of child labor condemns the children to starvation. If the marginal productivity of labor is so low that a worker can only earn in ten hours wages which are substandard when compared with American wages, one does not benefit the laborer by decreeing the eight-hour day.
The problem under discussion is not the desirability of improving the wage earners’ well-being. The advocates of what are miscalled prolabor laws intentionally confuse the issue in repeating again and again that more leisure, higher real wages, and freeing children and married women from the necessity of seeking jobs would make families of workers happier. They resort to falsehood and mean calumny in calling those who oppose such laws as detrimental to the vital interests of the wage earners “labor-baiters” and “enemies of labor.” The disagreement does not refer to the ends sought; it concerns solely the means to be applied for their realization. The question is not whether or not improvement of the masses’ welfare is desirable. It is exclusively whether or not government decrees restricting the hours of work and the employment of women and children are the right means for raising the workers’ standard of living. This is a purely catallactic problem to be solved by economics. Emotional talk is beside the point. It is a poor disguise for the fact that these self-righteous advocates of restriction are unable to advance any tenable objections to the economists’ well-founded argumentation."
Technological and economical advances in time always makes the past look relatively harsh. Hours were long. Conditions were poor. By today’s standards if we look back, say, 50 years, sure, conditions did not match today’s. Going back even further we observe historically the absolute necessity children in the labor force.
If history is to be a guide here, then it is arduous and, frankly, erroneous to call child labor exploitation. Exploitation it was not. What it was, was a necessary to live. Government did not sprinkle in some magic dust to change this. It is economically unattainable. We have shifted away from this because of the evolution of our civilization.
Child labor was decreased naturally in the market place before any government laws dictated to people what to do.
Consequences
Favoring child labor laws by economic necessity will hurt some people (some families), even here in the U.S. The degree to which it will hurt people depends on how advanced the society in question is. If we are talking about the U.S., then it will be a very small minimum. If we are talking about a Third World nation, then it will be great (ceteris paribus).
Nothing is wrong with businesses hiring children. Should they (children and parents) not have the option available to them? Or should Caesar decide? Certain circumstances may require it, but this would be relatively more rare because, as I have noted, we have moved beyond the necessity of children labor.
And what about families with a work ethic of farm life or maybe even an Amish life. They surely are engaged in hard labor. (Besides, children these days probably could use some hard labor!) It is not my right or yours to stop them by the point of the gun. You can disprove. Fine, whatever. You can try to talk them out of it. Fine. But you have no right to rule over them and run their own lives.
Then there are the children who cannot mentally succeed in education for long. It is a fact of life, if you like it or not, that the mentally handicapped can only benefit for just a few years of formal education (if that). Besides wasting years and years of education, they should be taught a skill----even a very simple one. They would get further in life. They can get a simple job and feel useful. Their labor should be welcomed. If, for example, their mental capabilities are of a nine year old, then why not let them try to establishes themselves? A free market division of labor makes them useful. (That is one of the problems with government regulations because many of them regulates these people out of the work force. How compassionate is that?)
Others, maybe not considered mentally handicapped, are just not cut out for school. What happens with these students? They create a bad environment for the ones that can and do benefit. Many of them join gangs and take drugs. They would be better if they could drop out of a formal education. The chances that they would join gangs or take drugs would decline. Compulsory laws are evil and unnecessary. If they spent time picking up a skill, their life would be much better. Who cares if they enter the market place at a less than X government-approved age?
X is arbitrary. Yes, it has some basis in reality of empirical evidence. But it is still arbitrary. A 50 year old can be less mature and/or less mentally competent than a 13 year old. Children should not be slaves of the State anymore than adults. Of course, authority should exist. (It does need to exist.) Children are under the the household of their parents. Good parents will raise their children well and instill in them good values and the ability of be independent when they get older. That authority is to be with the parents not the big daddy government. We must strength that.
Murray Rothbard wrote:
"Not only is the child prevented from laboring, but the income of families with children is arbitrarily lowered by the government, and childless families gain at the expense of families with children. Child labor laws penalize families with children because the period of time in which children remain net monetary liabilities to their parents is thereby prolonged."
This is especially true in Third Worlds. But it is also true here to a degree. It helps weaken the traditional family, along with so many other government laws and programs.
As much it offends most modern sensibilities, we must free up the labor market and allow people to be free. Economics can be counterintuitive. A law gets past. We expect no consequences or unintended ones. But there are consequences----even if they are unintended. We might hate something or an activity, but banning it by the gun too often makes the aftereffects of the ban worse.
Utilitarianism is not the only defense or the primary one. The freedom answer is the defense. "Freedom is the Answer. What's the Question?" (As Ernest Hancock says.) It is time for people to grow up and stop being children in its view of big daddy government.
tl;dr, Child labor, while terrible, is better than no income and banning it usually leads to prostitution. Laws against it is also a violation of freedom of contract, i.e. a six year old wants to work for a company.
Far from being the “birth child” of evillll capitalist pigs, child labor has existed since the beginning of history. Requirements to live made its existence necessary. So credulous and ignorant are people that they cannot see that the only way, like in the United States, societies’ can “grow out” of child labor is to actually engage in capitalism to build up capital and increase production capabilities.
Government cannot magically transform a society to do this. The very life of government is a life of a parasite. No wishful thinking or hoping can transform a society except through the capitalist method. This method requires people to recognize the natural right of person and property. For this very reason, instead of booing capitalism, it should be cheered. It was not the State that ended child labor, but the capitalist pigs.
Although, I fail to see what is so intrinsically “evil” about child labor.
What is the capitalist method?
"Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at."
There you have it from the great Murray N. Rothbard.
A developing society with little to no capital requires more people in the labor force. This cannot be wished away. Low production output will require a larger supply of labor. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period. The way to change this is through capitalism. Capitalist advances in raising production capabilities will increase the output of labor.
What will this do? For one, it will free up labor into more productive activities. Obviously child labor becomes less and less a necessity. Secondly, it will, due to the disutility of labor (i.e., in a nutshell, people like and want leisure), increase leisure. (It is not government that allowed people to cut down the work week.)
Third Worlds
How is it possible that we can condemn the businessman that hired or today hires in Third World nations children, away from the worse alternative conditions of starvation, excessive and worse conditions of farm life, or prostitution? Instead of hissing capitalism we should be speaking well of it. We should thank the capitalists and innovators who were alone responsible for the evolving of us, here in the U.S., beyond the need for child labor.
It is deplorable for leftists and other all-around statists to demand an end to child labor. I would not call the very real alternative of a child entering prostitution or starving as something to be preferred to working in a factory.
Economist Ludwig von Mises in his giant Human Action describes the single way that Third Worlds can “evolve” out of child labor and out of less-than stellar working conditions:
"It is a sad fact indeed that in Asia many millions of tender children are destitute and starving, that wages are extremely low when compared with America or Western European standards, that hours of work are long, and that sanitary conditions in the workshops are deplorable. But there is not means of eliminating these evils other than to work, to produce, and to save more and thus to accumulate more capital. This is indispensable for any lasting improvement. The restrictive measures advocated by self-styled philanthropists and humanitarians would be futile. They would not only fail to improve conditions, they would make things a good deal worse. If the parents are too poor to feed their children adequately, prohibition of child labor condemns the children to starvation. If the marginal productivity of labor is so low that a worker can only earn in ten hours wages which are substandard when compared with American wages, one does not benefit the laborer by decreeing the eight-hour day.
The problem under discussion is not the desirability of improving the wage earners’ well-being. The advocates of what are miscalled prolabor laws intentionally confuse the issue in repeating again and again that more leisure, higher real wages, and freeing children and married women from the necessity of seeking jobs would make families of workers happier. They resort to falsehood and mean calumny in calling those who oppose such laws as detrimental to the vital interests of the wage earners “labor-baiters” and “enemies of labor.” The disagreement does not refer to the ends sought; it concerns solely the means to be applied for their realization. The question is not whether or not improvement of the masses’ welfare is desirable. It is exclusively whether or not government decrees restricting the hours of work and the employment of women and children are the right means for raising the workers’ standard of living. This is a purely catallactic problem to be solved by economics. Emotional talk is beside the point. It is a poor disguise for the fact that these self-righteous advocates of restriction are unable to advance any tenable objections to the economists’ well-founded argumentation."
Technological and economical advances in time always makes the past look relatively harsh. Hours were long. Conditions were poor. By today’s standards if we look back, say, 50 years, sure, conditions did not match today’s. Going back even further we observe historically the absolute necessity children in the labor force.
If history is to be a guide here, then it is arduous and, frankly, erroneous to call child labor exploitation. Exploitation it was not. What it was, was a necessary to live. Government did not sprinkle in some magic dust to change this. It is economically unattainable. We have shifted away from this because of the evolution of our civilization.
Child labor was decreased naturally in the market place before any government laws dictated to people what to do.
Consequences
Favoring child labor laws by economic necessity will hurt some people (some families), even here in the U.S. The degree to which it will hurt people depends on how advanced the society in question is. If we are talking about the U.S., then it will be a very small minimum. If we are talking about a Third World nation, then it will be great (ceteris paribus).
Nothing is wrong with businesses hiring children. Should they (children and parents) not have the option available to them? Or should Caesar decide? Certain circumstances may require it, but this would be relatively more rare because, as I have noted, we have moved beyond the necessity of children labor.
And what about families with a work ethic of farm life or maybe even an Amish life. They surely are engaged in hard labor. (Besides, children these days probably could use some hard labor!) It is not my right or yours to stop them by the point of the gun. You can disprove. Fine, whatever. You can try to talk them out of it. Fine. But you have no right to rule over them and run their own lives.
Then there are the children who cannot mentally succeed in education for long. It is a fact of life, if you like it or not, that the mentally handicapped can only benefit for just a few years of formal education (if that). Besides wasting years and years of education, they should be taught a skill----even a very simple one. They would get further in life. They can get a simple job and feel useful. Their labor should be welcomed. If, for example, their mental capabilities are of a nine year old, then why not let them try to establishes themselves? A free market division of labor makes them useful. (That is one of the problems with government regulations because many of them regulates these people out of the work force. How compassionate is that?)
Others, maybe not considered mentally handicapped, are just not cut out for school. What happens with these students? They create a bad environment for the ones that can and do benefit. Many of them join gangs and take drugs. They would be better if they could drop out of a formal education. The chances that they would join gangs or take drugs would decline. Compulsory laws are evil and unnecessary. If they spent time picking up a skill, their life would be much better. Who cares if they enter the market place at a less than X government-approved age?
X is arbitrary. Yes, it has some basis in reality of empirical evidence. But it is still arbitrary. A 50 year old can be less mature and/or less mentally competent than a 13 year old. Children should not be slaves of the State anymore than adults. Of course, authority should exist. (It does need to exist.) Children are under the the household of their parents. Good parents will raise their children well and instill in them good values and the ability of be independent when they get older. That authority is to be with the parents not the big daddy government. We must strength that.
Murray Rothbard wrote:
"Not only is the child prevented from laboring, but the income of families with children is arbitrarily lowered by the government, and childless families gain at the expense of families with children. Child labor laws penalize families with children because the period of time in which children remain net monetary liabilities to their parents is thereby prolonged."
This is especially true in Third Worlds. But it is also true here to a degree. It helps weaken the traditional family, along with so many other government laws and programs.
As much it offends most modern sensibilities, we must free up the labor market and allow people to be free. Economics can be counterintuitive. A law gets past. We expect no consequences or unintended ones. But there are consequences----even if they are unintended. We might hate something or an activity, but banning it by the gun too often makes the aftereffects of the ban worse.
Utilitarianism is not the only defense or the primary one. The freedom answer is the defense. "Freedom is the Answer. What's the Question?" (As Ernest Hancock says.) It is time for people to grow up and stop being children in its view of big daddy government.
tl;dr, Child labor, while terrible, is better than no income and banning it usually leads to prostitution. Laws against it is also a violation of freedom of contract, i.e. a six year old wants to work for a company.