A lawyer friend and I debate economic issues and politics after work. His claim is that
A> neither the US nor Europe are socialist nations - there is no socialism in the world
B> free markets lead to child labor or company store slavery
C> Central bankers are benevolent necessities of the state (he trusts them, or maybe he doesn't)
I'm a secret lawyer, or I just like to fight and argue. Apparently, he's the same, we show up at the local pub and do intellectual fight club.
So the question is:
How is it that the company store is to blame for poor vile child labor acts and families getting thrown out of their homes by the company store at the coal mines?
I argue our problems are caused by the excessive government regulations, taxes, and illogical policies. We agree on a great many things about civil rights and personal freedom, we differ on how that is effected by government, he believes it to be a positive, and I a negative.
I should ask him to elaborate on the child labor horrors and company store fallacies.
ken
Here let him read this article from The Freeman about child labor:
That you should.
There are times, when child labor is productive, and indeed necessary - the alternative being other, more unpleasant modes of survival (begging, prostitution, etc.) or starvation. In those situtations, child labor is a rational thing to have.
And you can always point out, that the free market is the best way to greater all-around prosperity, and more free time - which also allows large parts of the work-capable population (where children arguably belong) to concentrate on other things. Poverty is the way to full employment - where everyone, including the children, has to work. Free markets offer a way out of poverty.
A> Depends on the definition really - and there are at least a few nominally socialist countries in the world.
B> Nope.
C> Nope.
Mises Wiki | Economic Resources and Books (search engine)
The rights of children to work were protected in the United States, until the 1930's, when adults got sick of having to compete with children for work, so the government made it illegal for children to work. It had absolutely nothing to do with "protecting the children". Once I tell most people about this simple fact, they just go "oh".
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: The rights of children to work were protected in the United States, until the 1930's, when adults got sick of having to compete with children for work, so the government made it illegal for children to work. It had absolutely nothing to do with "protecting the children". Once I tell most people about this simple fact, they just go "oh".
lol that's funny, I never thought it might have been that way. Got any articles or sources to cite this kind of thing?
Giant_Joe:lol that's funny, I never thought it might have been that way. Got any articles or sources to cite this kind of thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labor_laws_in_the_United_States
"It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children."
http://mises.org/story/2858
"By the time this legislation passed, however, it was mostly a symbol, a classic case of Washington chasing a trend in order to take credit for it. Youth labor was expected in the 17th and 18th centuries — even welcome, since remunerative work opportunities were newly present. But as prosperity grew with the advance of commerce, more kids left the workforce. By 1930, only 6.4 percent of kids between the ages of 10 and 15 were actually employed, and 3 out of 4 of those were in agriculture.[1]"
The fear of child labor and sweatshops in developed areas is unfounded.