A few words about child labor

Article Jakub Skala from Mises.cz "Shine and misery of child labor"Provoked (not only here, but also on the original website) relatively interesting reactions. It is a pity that one of the bases of those reactions was often a simple misunderstanding. Of course, no one wants children to work in factories in our country today.

Indian Children (AP Photo M.Lakshman)
Indian Children (AP Photo M.Lakshman)

No one disputes that a ten-year-old child does not have the intellectual "power" to negotiate with his "employer." Nobody says that's not the case.

The only thing I or Jakub Skala say is that we are actually incredibly rich. There are 15 children under the age of 1 in the Czech Republic. There are roughly the same number of people over the age of 601 in the Czech Republic.

These two groups of about the same size are able to feed the rest of us. For the latter, it's been a problem for a year. Not for the first one. We are able to support our children precisely because we are, in fact, a relatively rich society.

But what makes us so rich today? This is of course (also) thanks to children who went to work a hundred or more years ago. At that time, we, as a "society", were not rich enough to feed such a significant part of the population as children. Wealth is created by producing - producing innovation, new ideas, better products - things that satisfy human needs (more, better). The children of that "wild capitalism" of the 19th century produced - and created wealth. The wealth that makes today's children not have to work.

Let us respect the children of that time and respect our present wealth. Not theirs children's work, we would be somewhere at the level of the 19th century. Why? Because if we needed child labor today, it would mean that we would not have the capital (machines, finances, professionals) to replace them naturally.

The children of that time did an interesting thing: by producing and creating capital, they made today's child labor rather counterproductive. Its "price" is negative. Today's children do not work not because it is forbidden by law, but because it is no longer needed. It is better to let children be educated so that they can work at all, because basic literacy and the ability to think are basic prerequisites for today's work. An uneducated child is too expensive a worker, compared to a person with primary school it is at a clear disadvantage. Currently, there is no job for uneducated children, there is no reason for them to work.

It was not the state that "abolished" child labor, but the children themselves, through their own previous work.

The current law, which prohibits work unless you were 15 and you have not completed primary school, is about as valid today as the legal ban on parking a human spaceship in an alien garden. Today, in no case will almost anyone force children to work (by force). And if someone else does it somewhere, no law will stop him - usually it's more a question of social care.

Let the poor get rich

As I have already said, I believe that Jakub Skala did not want to honor child labor in his article. I think the aim could have been to point out another, very important fact.

Lately, it's fashionable to say baby work should be disabled. Banning some work (general) is a bit nonsense - even today our children work (I washed the dishes and took out the basket).

Poor third world countries are often targeted - saying that "poor children need help from factory tyranny". However, this is nothing more than a development similar to what we Europeans have already experienced: children work so that future children do not have to work.

If we impose a duty on products that have been produced through child labor, for example, we will do nothing but force more and more generations of children to work, instead of being educated. Today's children will have to leave the factory. Their alternatives are hard work in agriculture and prostitution. Future children in third world countries will be forced to work one way or another - either legally, because their world will not be rich enough to ensure a peaceful childhood, or "illegally" - by the aforementioned prostitution, begging or agriculture.

Child labor disappears by itself, as a sign of the coming wealth. Let's look forward to it.

0 comments

  1. Vít Kučík: I appreciate the recognition and thank you for it! I also return it, because I like to read your articles on iDnes very much. 🙂

  2. waffles - today quite yes, that's true. Philosophy and the utilitarian rejection of morality de facto make it impossible to create * any * decent system. Ad private police - do not take it as police in the conventional sense; such a private police would necessarily be just a kind of security guard, which naturally defends the interests of its landlords or owners. It is utterly naive to think that such "private police" would be concerned with justice or public opinion in any way - see Iraq again. Neither the Iraqis, nor their government, nor the American troops who were attacked by the Blackwater wanted there; the company operated completely out of law, ie in de facto anarchy, liquidated whomever they wanted and NIC ever happened to them and could not even happen. To think that it would look different in AK is a utopia.
    In the rest of that paragraph, you confuse cause with effect. First, the fundamental difference between a flat-rate armed component that no one can buy through higher levies, since these are fixed (but voluntary on a binary basis - you pay a fixed amount or you're antisocial and pay nothing, abusing the payments of others) - and between * hired * armed forces, ie de facto something between assassins, security guards and enforcers. In other words, between "public servants" and gangsters.
    At the heart of the problem with today's Police is that it has a monopoly on power. On the contrary, I am very pleased that the "competing" Russian, Ukrainian and Islamic police, defending Russian, Ukrainian and Muslim interests and "laws", do not operate here. The problem with the Police and its abuse of power stems primarily from the fact that the Police are merely a "Law Enforcement Officer" (see Anglo-Saxon "law enforcement") - and can therefore only be as good as the laws they enforce.
    If the laws are robbery and criminal, it's not the fault of the Police - but of the legislators. Were it not for the Police, those laws would be enforced by tax collectors as in the Middle Ages. And even if the competition were the Police, they would still either enforce the laws of a state (such as a foreign one) or create statelessness ("yes, we employ slaves in this factory. But our police are as strong as the" state "), so here your laws prohibiting slave labor do not apply. Do you want a battle ?! ”) - in other words, there would be no improvement.

    The problem of states lies in the laws - that is the root cause; everything else is just a derived consequence. If the laws only ensured the protection of life, personality and property, and the state represented only an elected head for communication with foreign heads and a voluntarily paid Police and Army (which goes, see more http://www.dfens-cz.com/komentare.php?akce=fullview&cisloclanku=2010112601&lstkom=318145#kom318174 and beyond), would be absolutely no problem. And here it is enough to refer to http://www.libinst.cz/etexts/bastiat_zakon.pdf

  3. Yes, we can only agree with your addition… It is also written a little more clearly than the original article to which I responded and which contained several vague and "special" formulations… :))
    ...
    Otherwise, recognition for the WEB and the vast majority of its articles. From a stylistic and argumentative point of view, you just don't see anything similar on the Czech net… :)) Really.

  4. cover:
    "In a well-set republic, the system is set up so that" - If you already assume that the system is set up well, it will automatically be assumed that such a system is good. But such an assumption is absolutely at odds with reality.

    "But if a neighbor breaks your car and refuses to go to that commercial court, what will you do?"
    Exactly what you do to protect you from fire, flood, hail (these will never come to any court) - YOU WILL INSURE.

    "And what if a neighbor is richer and hires a private police stronger than yours?" - As you write, a private company maximizes profits - so the private police will also want to maximize profits. How long do you think the private police will enjoy the trust that people and companies will perceive as aggressors? How long will people be willing to pay her? Very short! But the state police have no competition - when the state police attack you - you have no way to defend yourself !!! And if you believe that people are basically bad, giving all the power and strength to a single organization is the worst thing you can do.

    "This means that this 'strongest stick' cannot be 'democratically abused' by the landlords / payers of the 'security tax' saying, 'We have now rented the biggest stick, so let's rob the property of that corporation and distribute it to us.'"
    This is exactly what is happening today! Don't you remember the billboards with Paroubek, how he promised pensions from the Čez profits !? No law will protect you from robbery, because the laws are made by thieves.

  5. Plus, another very significant difference is in the constraints that exist in that minarchy: there is some convention that * limits and defines in advance * the powers and behavior of that police and army. This means that this "strongest stick" cannot be "democratically abused" by the landlords / payers of the "security tax" saying "now we have rented the biggest stick, so let's rob the property of that corporation and distribute it to us" - because it is prohibited by a law that was created for the purpose of protecting the property of those people (for that purpose, the armed unit was created and, together with it, a law, such as the Constitution or the LZPAS).
    On the other hand, the armed forces of the corporation are not limited at all except by the will of the supervisory board.

  6. Vida, and we get a change to the discussion "minarchy versus anarcho-capitalism"…
    In a well-established republic, the system is set up to enforce, by general consensus, some rules agreed by a majority. Such as such a criminal code.
    In the minarchy, the state will limit itself to this, and that criminal code is only an instrument of justice - that is, it protects the property and lives of the people covered by it. There is no duality of law in the minarchy, so the same laws apply to everyone. Enforcement of this right is then made possible through the police, which is de facto the strongest (organized) armed group within the state.
    In anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, there is no criminal code or police: there are several corporations or courts that judge in some way - and they work without problems when two people argue about something and want to be tried by a third party. But if your neighbor breaks down your car and refuses to go to that commercial court, what will you do? How do you force him? Will you hire a private police? And what if a neighbor is richer and hires a private police force stronger than yours?
    Anarcho-capitalism is a system of absolute freedom - in which the "principle of the stronger" always necessarily wins. Anarcho-capitalism has de facto been here for many hundreds, if not thousands of years - and yet states have emerged. Why? Because people don't want to work at the same time, and when they get home, they become firefighters and protect their property against robberies. That's why they hire people for a reasonable price who do that full-time protection. And so the army and the police will be set up very quickly - on a completely voluntary basis. In other words, gangs of robbers and other vermin, as well as users of the largest stick - the largest private army - will not agree. But that's the way it goes.

    The only difference between anrcho-capitalism and the minarchy lies in who holds the biggest stick: whether those who earn [robbers] and who have to enforce anything because of their financial position [corporation] or whether the number of people who they give the armed forces an order of magnitude less than those corporations, but there are an order of magnitude more of them, so they can afford a larger private army as a result. And yes, it is likely that corporations or resp. the powerful will have more influence / weight in that minarchy as well - but still a little less than in anarcho-capitalism, where everything passes.

  7. Cover: “For anarcho-capitalism, you need those moral individuals. Someone who won't steal as soon as he calculates that no one will see him. ”I wouldn't agree here. Anarchy (btw, I'm not saying anarcho-capitalism, because capitalism is an inevitable consequence of anarchy) assumes that people are pigs; THEREFORE, THEREFORE, it is not a good idea for several of them to give unlimited power !!!

    Of course, the market does not mean a perfect utopia where injustice will never occur. One can only realistically expect that there will be less injustice than when there is a state.

  8. cover: I basically agree with that. I wrote somewhere above that people are what the system is. So deep down they are mostly bad, but a functioning social system can suppress these, say, "animal instincts" and give them good qualities. And just as I also wrote, in my opinion, a free AK company would be able to best highlight these good qualities.
    And I think we both mean a little different about anarcho-capitalism. I am thinking of a society where almost everything is privately owned and there is a system of private law and defense.

  9. Sonny, Kosik: and here lies the imaginary "philosophical core" of the contradiction. I absolutely do not think that people are "basically good" - on the contrary, I believe that the decent behavior of a very large percentage of people is determined only by the benefits of such behavior. See http://www.dfens-cz.com/komentare.php?akce=fullview&cisloclanku=2010120506&lstkom=318358#kom319258 and further, there coyot beautifully describes how he does everything not for some personal moral principle, but for immediate convenience. In other words, once people get the feeling that something will pass them, they will behave like nice pigs. After that discussion with him, I pondered this and came to the conclusion that it is a natural and inevitable outcome of the philosophical trends of the 20th century: they are completely utilitarian, ultra-pragmatic, and since they assume that man is an animal, there is no a place for morality. They are the embodiment of the glorious "if there is no God, everything is permissible" - and coyot is right that IMHo behaves exactly according to this principle the vast majority of today's population.

    Which brings me to post 23.2: for anarcho-capitalism, you need just those moral individuals. Someone who won't start stealing once he calculates that no one will see him. Because robbery, on the other hand, is highly rational, QED history - especially the early history of all nations.

  10. Kosik: only purely technical for profit; when an economist says that a company maximizes profit, it means the discounted sum of all future cash flows adjusted for risk. If we distinguished between "profit" and some "sustainable profit", it would unnecessarily complicate economic analysis.

  11. cover: You say yourself that nothing is so simple, but you approach companies with forgiveness as a leftist. You argue as if the vast majority of companies behaved like that of a mining company. But it is exactly the opposite. Just as some people may be bad, some companies will be bad, but there is a very small percentage of them.
    And to maximize profits - it's really not that simple. In today's highly competitive environment, simply maximizing profit is no longer the main goal. The most successful companies pursue a long-term strategy of "sustainable" profit, which is large enough for the long-term existence of the company. The main goal is the best possible customer satisfaction, which then brings profit (and it's not that they are kind of philanthropic, but it is simply a necessary condition for the company's survival in a highly competitive environment). I can also maximize my personal gain by going and stealing a business, but I won't. Just like I can't do companies.
    In addition, some "visionary" entrepreneurs do not even want to make a profit. They have a certain vision that they want to fulfill and profit is only a pleasant side effect, see Mark Zuckerberg. It is necessary to distinguish between monetary gain and mental profit, and it is primarily about maximizing mental profit. In some cases it may correlate with monetary gain, but in some cases this is not the case.

    And otherwise I stand behind the fact that the behavior of companies in today's world and in AK society would be very different.

  12. (1) To those corporations: today big companies bully African natives too, so it certainly can't be an argument against anarchy. And the state can even support those companies. In our current legal system, it is not possible to sue environmental pollution, and even if it is, the courts are so slow that it is often of no value. This records large polluters (eg Třinecké železárny). After all, even those African natives end up catching it only thanks to a dysfunctional and corrupt government. This would not happen in a state governed by the rule of law, and the rule of law is, in my view, closer to anarchy than a corrupt totalitarian regime.

    (2) Both anarchy and communism are in a way utopias in the sense that they expect some change in people's thinking, but there is a difference. Communism assumes that people will stop responding to economic stimuli and will stop acting rationally. It is impossible. Anarchy only assumes that a sufficient number of people will stop behaving like grumpy sheep and believe everything they tell them at school. The change in thinking required by anarchism can be achieved.

  13. waffles: speak to the oak. Nowhere have I explicitly written that I * wish * for state intervention in education, compulsory education, and so on. The only thing I've tried to suggest here is the fact that it's not that simple.

    Kosik: what is the primary goal of ALL companies? Profit maximization. Do you think that if a company stops paying taxes, it will distribute the money saved in this way? Nonsense. He just invests them elsewhere. [To make no mistake, I'm not defending taxes, forced solidarity, or anything else - I'm just demonstrating a certain pattern of behavior to consider.]

    What is the FARC? Is it a state? No - it's an drug addiction, controlling some territory. And what is a drug addiction? Private company generating profit. He is a VERY small difference - if any - between a corporation at a certain stage of development and the state. And between a "ruthless" corporation and a totalitarian state. QED in history again.

    Ad minarchy - to quote the OCS, "isn't it better to have at least for a while an ideal state that will degenerate into democracy than to be a democracy all the time?"
    The United States remained a very good place to live until the advent of the Progressives (ie Hoover and Roosevelt).

  14. cover72:
    by ethnicity:
    Those children are children of that ethnicity, not yours, not the state. It is also empirically proven that with education a person has a much better and better life. This means that the given ethnic group will naturally die out - it will not be able to assert itself in competition with others = the problem is solved. Or it will have to adapt itself = the problem is solved.

    There are also many examples where the state sent children to its schools and brainwashed them with its ideology - communism, fascism, Islamism, etc. The possibility of a small group condemning their children to failure is far better than the possibility of the state condemns all children to failure. Who will guarantee that the child will learn the right things in public school? See today's education (Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Sweden, it practically doesn't matter)

    On what basis do you want to determine who will have the right to decide on foreign children? If the child is not property, why can't the own parent decide on it, but a complete stranger (official) can? Who is more likely to be interested in the good development of their offspring? A parent or official who has never seen the child in his life?

    ad "surface quarry lets villagers disappear"
    Hitler allowed almost the entire nation and part of the ethnic group to disappear. Stalin / Lenin has lost tens of millions of its own citizens. China also has no problem with the disappearance of its citizens. And what about the Sudetenland? The United States drove its own Japanese nationals into concentration camps during World War II.

    Simply put, the state is no guarantee that no evil will happen. On the contrary - the state legalizes evil. Yes, in anarcho-capitalism, a company can destroy a village - but it will be illegal, immoral, unjust. The state can do the same, but it will be legal and you have no chance to defend yourself against it.

  15. cover: these are all examples from today's "corrupt" world… the fundamental question is, why do these corporations behave like this? Is it not related to lobbying activities in the state, bribery of civil servants? with inflation over the last 40 years, which is very problematic for companies and pressures a significant way to reduce costs? with the absence of enforceable law in Mexico, for example? Speaking of Mexico, it's a drug war that makes some drug gangs more powerful than the Mexican government itself? etc…. none of this would be in AK society and then it is very likely that large corporations would behave completely differently .. but hard to say…

    So you're a minarchist, aren't you? and don't you think it's also a minor utopia? because in history never a "small stat" has remained small… Or sometimes? I would not like to be wrong…

  16. Kosik: practice again 😀 You do not count on globalization. The mining company is a real-world case, but for a few dozen some Mexicans, to be honest, "shit a dog." What is the Chinese mega-corporation like in terms of living conditions at the quarry of its subcontractor? It's totally stolen from those Chinese. Naturally.
    Your concept would work if every behavior of the corporation, etc. reflected in its sales. But this is simply not and will not be: partly due to globalization, partly due to size (the village will be "disappeared" and no one will notice at all), thirdly due to the possibility to justify it (typically: the villagers were terrorists connected to AQ) and fourthly it may not in many cases, the end consumer will be able to "choose with a wallet". Oil companies, for example: if Dutch Shell behaves disgustingly, what are you going to do about it? Do you know who the oil comes from at the gas station where you refuel? Especially if you are familiar with the oil distribution system, you will understand that you are not and you can't - simply because the physical raw material is virtualized, etc. Again for a longer talk. Anyway, even if you knew that oil on the elderberry came from a company whose practices would come unethical, would you go elsewhere? And will you do it because of a few villagers somewhere in Mexico who may have gotten a hard time and maybe not, even if it means driving 2 crowns more expensive for diesel? Even if you were so characteristic, you would be in a total minority. And you will ruin and you can do nothing.

    This was just a miniature training - you could describe whole pages about it. Forget you could do something - today's megacorporations have as much power as smaller states; many also have their own armies. And again - see Blackwater / Xe. They shoot the locals and what happens? Who's packing them? And who cares?

  17. One more thing - with the abuse of power - you assume that large powerful companies would begin to abuse their power. I don't think so, because why on earth would they do that? What motivation would they have for doing so? Even today, companies have learned very well that it is much more advantageous to satisfy the wishes of customers as best as possible than some "according to" practice. It is a completely pragmatic thing. Just as people in the past have known that voluntary exchange is much more beneficial than violence.
    E.g. one of the largest companies in US history Rockefeller's Standard Oil Rock Did Rockefeller abuse its unbelievable power? No, why would he do that? From the point of view of his competitors, it may have looked like that, but it was a normal competitive struggle, where Rockefeller was so incredibly productive that he could extract oil much cheaper than the others. His competitors weren't thrilled, but everyone else benefited unbelievably. The same goes for Carnegie, who managed to reduce the price of steel by 90%, which made everyone rich.

  18. cover: we're not talking about volunteer communities here. there, of course, communism can work fine, because it is a smaller group of people cooperating on a voluntary basis… on a larger scale, where millions of acting people cooperate, communism simply can not work (I can still talk about what it means to work… if everyone want to live in poverty and make almost everything on their own, so yes, then communism can "work")

    if AK… if we take the assumption that there is all the wealth on the free market and power ultimately depended on the final consumers, ie the only way to get rich is to satisfy the consumer's money as much as possible, then the bad mining company would quickly lose its reputation and people but even entrepreneurs could stop buying from it or they would simply gradually move to other sources than in this case coal…

  19. Kosik: and we're back to the practice. Communism worked, for example, in the Israeli Kibbutz: everyone gave according to their abilities and received according to their needs. More or less. It worked there because it was a voluntary community that had no other motivation than financial gain. Other things were just important to them, a common idea, so the typical "when everything belongs to everyone, noone cares about anything" didn't show.

    Likewise, anarcho-capitalism counts on the non-existence of the state and a purely commercial base - when, however, a massive abuse of power begins very quickly (see DF discussion again, eg a mining company will build a surface quarry, mining it will destroy the lives of people in the adjacent village they can't do anything, because the mining company has many orders of magnitude more money, armed protection, and there is nothing in anarcho-capitalism that would prevent the protesting villagers from simply "disappearing" - whoever has the money has power, so anarcho-capitalism could only work where all people had very developed morals and there was no abuse of the “right of the stronger.” Which, of course, is Utopia, and AK is just another notion of paradise on earth.
    [By the way, Ak de facto existed in the first centuries of the country's history, and it was precisely because of the intolerance of the looting bands of the then "corporations" and foreign invaders that the state began to emerge].

    Sonny Ortega: ok. I just take the collectivist as something ultimately bad, so it was an insult to me
    Otherwise, as far as my controversy is concerned, I was just trying to suggest that the situation is not as clear and simple as it seemed from the author's article (and previous article) - and to point out known untruths in the child's ability to behave "market" and eg change "unsatisfactory" parents. Among other things, I am a minarchist and I always try to take into account even seemingly unseen factors…

  20. cover: "Anarcho-capitalism could work if people were morally perfect. Like communism, it's just the same utopia. "

    I'm not entirely sure about that yet, but communism wouldn't work even if they were all "morally perfect." The advice here would be the problem of the non-existence of market prices, which would cause known problems. And about anarcho-capitalism - no one says that people would have to change in any way for this system to work. Yes, from the current state, where the vast majority of people know nothing but the state and cannot imagine life without it, where society is disrupted by inflation, social programs, etc., the rise of anarcho-capitalism is a minor utopia, but a gradual long-term transition until people realize that the state is at the root of almost all problems, so I think it is possible…

    After all, people are what the system is… in the welfare states they are slowly but surely degenerating and becoming more and more dependent on the state, and it is the free market that gives people the maximum of good qualities…

  21. And by the way, the socialist is no curse to me. For me, a socialist, from the word society, is simply the opposite of an individualist. An individualist is then a person who believes that every problem is SOMETHING's problem; that there is nothing like our common, public problem. That is, if a parent has a problem with the child, it is his problem; if a child has a problem with a parent, then holt setsakra is unlucky.

    And (by the way) I do not believe in either Bastiat or Rothbard in terms of "natural law" or any other system of inalienable and inalienable rights that belong to God from nature or nature. In my opinion, a social norm or institution arises as a more or less optimal solution to a strategic game and serves to coordinate human society in order to create order. So it's a utilitarian concept for me. When you come up with a system of basic human rights (Bastiat, Rothbard), you inevitably get into trouble once you start thinking about your parents' relationship with their children.

  22. Cover:

    I am sorry. I guess it's because I wrote it at four in the morning after twelve hours of study. I just saw that you were arguing with the author, and somehow I deduced from this that you are in favor of a state ban on child labor, or compulsory school attendance. Now I read it again and I see that you didn't actually write anything like that. I don't understand what you actually argued about together (I've been up for 24 hours and my ability to perceive a coherent text is currently zero), but I apologize once again.

  23. waffles: there are empirically documented many cases of different ethnicities where parents prevent children from accessing school, although there they want the children and the existence of the family does not depend on child labor. They simply have a cultural opinion, ie that "no one needs a school" and instead teach children, for example, to steal or cultivate fields in the same way as ancestor, great-ancestor and so on. That is the reality.

    And now the problem: it is relatively easy to theorize about an ideal system in relation to a sovereign, adult individual - he is a sovereign being and what he voluntarily does with his life is his and only thing. But children are NOT AN property, AN sovereign individual (and not, as has also been empirically and subsequently psychologically proven, a child will NOT leave on more favorable terms, as the previous article claims). And then the question necessarily arises: what role of the state in regulating the behavior of "owners" / "administrators" towards children (or animals) is positive (and say in accordance with Bastiat's guarantee of three fundamental rights, ie life, personality and property) and what is it already social engineering? If the owner decides to "train" his dog by tying him to a chain and firing firecrackers at him, does the state have the right to say "stop, this is animal cruelty", or should he leave it? If a parent decides that it is better for a child to steal a career than to learn, is it right to give children an education that their parents would otherwise deny them by force, even though it would not be necessary for the family's economic survival? And what if a similar case happens with an agricultural family? When viewed from above, there are two cases: the child wants to learn and the parents prevent him from doing so. But they are completely different, and also the morality / immorality of state intervention will be different in both cases, right?

    The world is a complex, open system. And as you begin to come across specific cases, in time (perhaps) you will understand that theories are a nice thing, but only as a kind of skeleton; as a principle. Yes, the principle must not be violated - but sometimes it is quite difficult to know when it is violated and what. There are no fixed boundaries; there is only black and white. In reality, you can't generalize and proudly, "solve" everything from a height and judge immediately - because they are completely different from case to case, even if they have very similar features. Because if you do, you will become an extremist. Both anarcho-capitalism and communism are extremes - and I do not agree with either. And so it happened that I mostly argue against social engineering and collectivism, but from time to time I also have to stand up to an extremist from the right spectrum - and I am immediately left-handed. Just as I defended Russian technology somewhere in front of people convinced of its inferiority, and I was a "Russophile," while elsewhere I dampened the enthusiasm of fanatics for it and was an "Americanphile." But I didn't care - the truth was somewhere in the middle. And so it is with everything.

  24. Sonny Ortega: excellent, I really love this way of arguing. Although I explicitly wrote that children should raise their parents (and not the state), you tell me the exact opposite. And I'm a socialist right away. Well, now you just have to come up with a properly ingenious explanation of how a "socialist and collectivist" can choose the Free and profess Bastiat?
    But no, the world is just amazingly simple for you. The theory is so and so - and "whoever disagrees with me is a socialist." The answer for the three mazes.

    I was also briefly a libertarian, almost anarcho-capitalist fundamentalist. But then I started to come across specific cases and began to find that reality is significantly more complex and complicated than theory - and that Čapek's "try to judge the world without BRUTAL GENERALIZATIONS and you won't be left with a pinch of your principles" applies quite universally.
    Anarcho-capitalism could work if people were morally perfect. Like communism - it's exactly the same utopia. If they are not perfect quickly, it will turn into the "right of the stronger" - QED empirically, the train does not go through it. But I'm not in the mood to discuss it here; I did so extensively, for example, at DFENS, where I can debate without being labeled a socana at the first sign of disagreement with the Universal, Generalizing Thesis. Have fun.

  25. Luke, this is why I'm a little afraid to argue on a pragmatic and superficial level. At first it seems easier than pulling out the ethics of individualism and arguing on a philosophical level, but then it inevitably degenerates into endless slapping in complete crap with some socialist.

    In the discussion with Cover, the deep fundamental contradiction between the two of you, the contradiction between individualism and socialism, is completely striking. The cover basically says: the child must raise the state, not the parent; the child is not just the child of that parent, he is the child of us, society, we must take care of him as society, we have full responsibility for him. While your individualistic attitude is (I'm just guessing, you didn't express it explicitly, but it's clear you're an individualist): the parent has the responsibility for the child. After all, it is in the parent's interest that the child be well-behaved and able to cope with the world. It's not in my interest; I have or will have my own children who I want to prepare for life. A politician will not suffer a loss if my child is raised badly. I will bear the loss (my genes will be disadvantaged), so I want to have everything under my control. Restrictions on a child's freedom are as reprehensible as restrictions on an adult's freedom.

    If you do not say clearly and explicitly: I am an individualist, you are a socialist, we obviously have a fundamental contradiction deep in the theoretical level, then you will not move in that argument, because when you start from other basic values, it is clear that you will diverge the more. in a practical application.

  26. cover72: At a time when attendance was not yet compulsory, the parents' biggest goal was to get the child to school, because they knew that it would make him far better than they should have.

    And if a child + his parents decide not to educate themselves, who are you or some complete stranger (bureaucrat) to stop him? By what right do you want to claim the opportunity to decide on other people's lives? You probably didn't think about it, but you weren't born into this world to show others what they can or can't do.

    Why do children cough up school today? Because even if they do not learn, they will have an income to survive (the state will steal them and give them away from the educated / hardworking). I.e. in today's system there is a complete lack of motivation to learn and work.

  27. Cover: By the way, I'm also not saying how to solve the third world problem universally. I just say by the exclusion method that a ban on child labor (customs, etc.) will not help.

  28. However, I have nothing against the children not being able to earn extra money from the brigade. I only point out the real danger in the form that if children (and therefore many parents) were allowed to cough up school and instead go to work (full-time), they would do so immediately, regardless of long-term profitability.
    I don't talk about third world countries at all, it's such a complex issue that any universally sound statement about how to "solve it" correctly is simply flawed…

  29. By the way, an example from life - I'm 19 years old today. I come from a poor family, you know - a cashier's mother in a supermarket with my father's debts (divorce when I was 3), her boyfriend (already a former) quite nice, except that he was a chronic gambler and an alcoholic.

    No.

    So when I was 13 or 14, do you think I went on all sorts of school trips? No. That I ever went skiing? No. That I went to summer camp? No. That I had internet at home? No. That I went to the movies with my classmates, out, for ice cream, anywhere? No. Why? We didn't have it at home. We were glad that we paid the rent and had something to eat.

    What would I give if I could hand out leaflets for 2 hours for 4 hours after school, for example, for 50 hours…

    I didn't study for school anyway (with an average of 1.2) 🙂

  30. Discussions on child labor are most important in the poorest developing countries. It is necessary to understand that in these poor societies, child labor is an income for the family, without which they could not even make a living. E.g. When child labor accounts for 20% of total income in a family, banning child labor will condemn the family to even greater poverty, and then these children will work illegally in even worse conditions than before.

    A cover: no one says that in a liberal society a child has to make his own decisions. Raising a child is the task of the parents and it is up to the parents to decide what is best for their child and not some state bureaucrat.

  31. But I'm not saying that children shouldn't be raised. I'm just saying that banning child labor by law is unnecessary and that trying to ban it in the Third World is counterproductive.

    Who raises children? Law or parents?

    By the way, it's not pointless. It is the obligation to go to school that deprives teachers of the motivation to interpret the material in such a way as to engage children. We ask why our children are getting worse and worse in international comparisons, while the answer is right in front of us and everyone has gone through it.

    Let me take economics as an example - in secondary schools today, things are taught that are not true for a long time. They learn in a way that many talented people run away from economics at university to psychology / philosophy and other disciplines. It is well? No. How come it doesn't change? Because teachers do not have to change the style of their teaching (even in elementary school). They are not driven by the dynamism of the environment, which is eliminated by their monopoly by law - compulsory school attendance (primary school).

  32. And after a "logical" analysis of such biology, I came to the conclusion that it would be useless to me and simply refused to learn it. Whether or not children enjoy school is irrelevant - it's just an illustration.
    What was the principle - namely that children are not able to make informed decisions, and therefore any attempt to delegate unlimited freedom and decision-making possibilities (and thus responsibility) to children will either meet with complete failure or create the perfect fakan. Either way, it will end in disaster.
    Children have been raised always and everywhere - it is foolish to say that they can de facto raise themselves because they are able to make informed decisions.

  33. Cover - you assume that the child decides on the whole school attendance and the whole youth. But it is not so. The child decides on each individual school day, on each individual school year. As a child, I was looking forward to school.

    The fact that children subsequently stop having fun is partly a mistake of that duty and partly a mistake of the schools.

  34. Um, first of all, a grammar: Those kids did everything with a hard "y". That's how it really strikes.
    Otherwise, one can agree with part of the article, but in part it is quite naive. Just one of the problems: a school, conceived in a stupid way, bores children to death and they do not see a benefit from it. I remember very well how annoyed I was at fifteen that I had to learn more and more - from my point of view then - nonsense instead of earning extra money and buying what I enjoy. After all, what do I need other than elementary mathematics and a little Czech?
    Over the years, I have naturally found that the information and knowledge that I despised as a child and resisted learning is also useful. Like those from geography. But if I had the freedom of choice then, I would have coughed up school - and then bitterly regretted it.

    Your basic premise is completely wrong: a child cannot and must not have freedom, because he is not able to behave with the appropriate responsibility. Parents are here to force what is for the good of the child - but what the child, given his mental development, cannot realize. Social engineering? Not - education.
    In the ultraliberal (it is no longer libertarian) tradition, there are such excesses as an eight-year-old girl buys high-heeled shoes under the influence of television, because her mother takes her as an equal partner and thinks that the girl is free to choose. And he'll ruin his legs. Permanently.
    The child's mentality is simply not at such a level that the child can make his or her own decisions in crucial matters - this is an empirically and psychologically proven fact.

    And by the way, about that "choice of better parents" - did you know that even abused children stand up for their parents and tenaciously love them? So those almost anarcho-capitalist theories on children would not work. Simply because children are children.

Comments are off.