libertarian labour

You should ask Libertarians if he does or not. I would say that child labowr is already outlawed. And I don't think I've seen any Libertarian suggest that forced labowr is permissible for anyone, children or adults. But I'm not really an expert on child labowr.

Wait -- does it make a difference what colowr the labowrers are?

Check the picture again. This is what it says:

Nowhere in that does it say that libertarians want kids to work in factories. What is does demonstrate is that the "good old days" were anything but that in many ways.

If you are a small farmer and you put your son to work at a young age of say somewhere between eight and ten, should you be thrown in jail for breaking child labor laws? There's no reason why a twelve year old can't work a part-time job voluntarily. Forced labor or selling your kid to a factory owner is and should be illegal. Allowing a teenager to operate dangerous or heavy machinery without proper training or a license is and should be illegal. I would have no problem allowing a kid to work a part-time job busing tables or helping with minor tasks at a young age of say 12 or 13. There's nothing wrong with earning a working wage and instilling responsibility into our youth. Frankly, I think we need more of it. I also don't have a problem with small business owners putting their children to work at a young age to help the family out and teach him responsibility. These are all forms of voluntary exchange and in no way correlates to kids working in factories.

Don't play dumb, the point of the picture and the thread is to insinuate that Libertarians want zero regulations and would be fine with children working in factories. It's the smug attitude of the OP to push a stereotypical, retarded, false image of Libertarians for his own purposes with no intent of actual intellectual discussion. In other words, it's ammeter hour here at WF.

Props for actually taking the trouble to respond to the question!

How would you formulate the law, and who should enforce it and how?

I really think you misunderstand this. I take the picture as a response to the oft-repeated libertarian claim that the US was better off in the late 19th and early 20th century. But what is perhaps more interesting is that libertarians apparently do disagree with current laws against child labour, as you did in your previous post. And at the same time, the topic points out the different concepts of freedom, as when you call a child's labour earning a working wage on their parents' orders 'voluntary', which I wouldn't (notwithstanding that I might agree with the practice under some circumstances). So examining that question seems fair.

Well, I'm more of a "Libertarian Constitutionalist", so I think each state state should handle it in their own way. I don't know who handles child labor cases, but I'd say it's totally within the states police power. If I were to actually write a law, I would allow children of the age of 12 -14 able to work part-time. No more than say 20 hours a week. 15-17, no more than 30. Family business would be free to raise their kids how they see fit, but if they choose to put their children to work, they can't work them no more than 30 hours. They get more leeway. As for enforcement, I'm not sure how it's enforced today, but I imagine it would require DDS or the Police. Of course, the burden of proof would be on the state and the accuser. I don't really agree with minimum wage, but since it exists, then of course they would be paid minimum wage. No person under the age of 16 would be allowed to operate heavy machinery or anything that would require a license. The reason I say 16 is because that is when most states allow you to drive. If you can drive a car, you can drive a forklift for example. Those are a few things I can think of off the top of my head. The labor of course would have to be light labor for the younger kids bellow the age of say 14 or 15. Employers would likely only hire younger kids for small jobs anyway.

Most of the arguments against laissez-faire are pure stupidity. These arguments posit a false dichotomy between "regular people" who, for unknown reasons, can't be permitted to make their own choices and officialdom, whether elected or appointed, as being, also for unknown reasons, better suited to make decisions on the behalf of people whose circumstances they do not share and with whom they will not share the consequences of their uninformed policymaking. The dichotomy on which rests every argument against leaving people the hell alone, even if it was a valid one, would be disastrous in its effects; the fact that it is only true insofar as state coercion and threats of violence make it true elevates it from disastrous to simply evil.

Thank you very much for a clear and detailed response. I have just one more question, which is essentially about the same issue as Castle's response above. I'm assuming you'd agree that there might be reasonable disagreement about allowing 25 or 35 rather than 30 hours for a certain age bracket, or about what constitutes light labour, and so on. You've made it clear that the states should regulate all of this, but as a matter of basic political philosophy, who or what gets the power to ultimately decide these questions? Are we talking about laws enacted by a democratically elected Parliament and applied by courts of law as a matter of precedents, in agreement with the current system (if not the federal level at which the current system might situate some of these rule-makers)? Or something else, that would perhaps satisfy Castle's objections? Most importantly, would there be limits to the rules that these institutions can add, and if so, where are they set down (as far as I can see, the current Constitution as well as most state constitutions don't explicitly give the state the right to regulate child labour)?

All of that sounds great, if you ignore actual history. I actually agree with most of what you said. But it runs headlong into this reality: when people are left the hell alone, they don't leave each other the hell alone, and so you get slavery, child labour in factories, and so on. The current government has been a successful tool to chip away at these evils. To me, this says that when kept within tight bounds, government can be very literally the lesser evil. To oppose it on principle leaves you in a place where you are indeed arguing to legalize hard child labour -- though not necessarily out of support for the practice, yet nevertheless out of a stronger opposotion against government regulation.

The other thing history shows us is that government doesn't always oppose -- and, in many cases, has (and in cases still does) actively supported these evils. Abolition of slavery in the United States wasn't spearheaded by the government, it was a cause eventually taken up by the government -- and even then was as violently opposed in it by yet another government. Abolition of abusive labor laws, including child labor laws? That's a fine goal, but let's ask the kids in Chinese sweatshops how aggressively their government is pursuing it.

Like I said; government is no problem solver. It's just the gang with the biggest guns. When people argue against minarchism or anarchism, the argument will sooner or later end up at cries of, "Tribalism!" Well, get this: we're there already.

When individuals and communities decide to oppose the guys with the guns, it is better in principle that the guys with the guns be fewer in number than greater, and that they have less power rather than more.

It is always better that the bad guys be fewer than the good guys, and that the good guys be better armed. But your individuals and communities may themselves be bad guys defending their right to keep slaves. In that case, it is better that the government that outlaws slavery have the bigger guns -- and in fact, that's almost a tautology, because a government that has less power than some other group is not or does not remain government; that other group will rule. Clearly, the solution is to support good government and oppose bad government; a general opposition to government simply does not follow.

AFAIK, child labor laws already exist and stemmed from an interpretation of the contracts clause, so perhaps that's where to look. If not, then obviously legislation would need to be written to establish perimeters. The state has policing power built into their sovereignty and this type of law fits into that policing power. I don't think it would be necessary to amend a state Constitution to legislate such a law. It would then be enforced through the courts with fines and jail time. Honestly, I work with teenagers, my boss isn't going out of his way to work them too much and he doesn't give them unreasonable tasks. Obviously, you can't ask a twelve year-old to step in on the grill and cook stakes, but you could potentially get a fifteen year-old to do that type of work. I mean, we already have existing laws that prevent people of a certain age to work. I'm just advocating expanding the law to allow younger people. Lastly, yes, there are always limits to how far the government can intrude in the economy and limits to their power. The state constitutions are where you'll find those limits. If someone feels those limits have passed, they are free to challenge the law in court. We would still use the same system we've been using for 230 years.

I would love for the free market to prevent five-year-old's from working in factories, but I don't see how. I see a need for government, but I believe it should be constitutionally limited in it's size and scope. and theoretically as has hands off on the economy as possible. Having children (5-11) in the work force full time is counter productive because they aren't in school learning the other important things in life. So, this is why I see a need for some government intervention, because it actually would hurt the economy in the long run, but I don't support the current laws on the books. I remember during the primary season last year, Gingrich ate a lot of shit for suggesting taking "problem kids" or inner city kids out of shitty situations and giving them jobs within the school system like janitor. I thought it was actually a good idea that could give some kids something productive to do and instill in them a sense of pride and responsibility. It beats slinging crack for the neighborhood gangster.

Yes.
No Libertarian I've ever heard of advocate the removal of ALL regulation.

Hell, Gary Johnson is on record thinking the EPA is necessary forcryinoutloud.

"I take the picture as a response to the oft-repeated libertarian claim that the US was better off in the late 19th and early 20th century."

I'm not familiar with anyone who makes this claim - perhaps i missed it.

SO whne you're buying a sweater from the Gap that was made by an 8 year old in Sri Lanka for a nickel (that was once made in Georgia, but cost a dollar when made by an adult) you're not supporting child labour? Let alone the pillaging of America's manufacturing abilities?

By supporting non tarrifed, unregulated trade, you are by extension supporting sending an American adult worker's job to that child labourer in India.

You're right in the sense that nothing you do cite as example equates to child factory labour. Not that any of it actually refutes the point that Laissez Faire ideology of free trade has been devastating to domestic production.

That'd be difficult... the term "Libertarianism" didn't exist (as you clowns try to define it)until Rose Wilder Lane coined it in the 40's. Prior to that, you'll find that it was generally used to describe organizations of highly liberal, and often radical (read: anarcho-communist) bent.

why does no one have the jobs in 2012? Because throwing a bone of laissez faire doctrine to corpratists has sent those jobs to where child labour is still legal.

I'm "libertarian", up to a point.

I think for the most part, authority ought to leave people the fuck alone.
Abolish the drug war, stop right this second the NSA tapping shit, etc, etc.

But, you can't leave the sociopaths alone, because they won't leave everyone else alone.
Factory polluters aren't just "minding their own business".
Outsource-ers aren't just "minding their own business".
Monsanto isn't just "minding it's own business".

They're out there in the world, fucking with people.

Now, either the government should do something, or we ought to legalize costumed vigilantes.

"Leaving them alone", isn't an option to me.
I don't believe in "sheep and wolves".
That's naked psychopathy.

Nothing amateurish about it, it's what the lefties here got when at their top game.

Prufrock wrote a substantive, thoughtful response early in thread, making it obvious to anyone reading the thread that not a single one of these leftie jackasses posing as thinking people on Wordforge is really interested in discussion on the substance of the "topic." It's what we got here representing the leftist ideology. Btw, insults are a useful means to garner a reply (Pru's mostly above that) - a good putdown has about a 50/50 success rate to trigger a response that has substance in return; also, a touch of hyperbole can be used to trigger a reply to substance - make the thoughtful points, but inject some exaggeration here or there to increase the chances of a reply that addresses at least some of the substance you covered.

Fortunately, you found Packard who though a kneejerk pacifist is not really a leftie, though he'll argue forever and a day about arguing (just be careful you don't get him caught up in a logic loop or banning will be the least of your worries, his head'll explode).

How does Tuttle define libertarianism?

Welcome to the adult conversation sparky.

I don't support it politically and morally. I'm not going to buy only made in the USA products in order to ease my conscience. It's too expensive and impractical. But this is the hypocracy of the left, they bitch about child labor on their laptop while texting on their smart phone and watching their HD TV. You're always going to have a group of people being exploited. When the people of China finally throw off the chains of Communism, some other Asian country will take its place and so on and so on.

Look who's supporting 19th century economics now. Protective tariffs never work and tariffs only spark tariff wars, a free trade zone is the only way to go.

Or, you could argue that the tax policy in the US has contributed to this as well as minimum wage laws, unions and government intervention in the economy amongst other things. Lets face it, the US and other countries in the West enjoy a comfortable standard of living. Its been built up over the years. Capitalism has over time lifted people out of poverty and moderate tax policies in the earlier half of the 20th century has made all of this possible. China and other countries are just now going through their industrial revolution, is it fair to ask them to meet our standards when we didn't have those same standards when we were going through those growing pains?

So let's bring back slaves.
What possible moral opposition could you have?

Straight-up question: What do you perceive as the need for child labor?

Nope. Prufrock gave us a list of other, less offensive libertarian stances, as though they somehow made the stance referenced in the OP less relevant. They don't.

Yep, that's what I'm advocating.

I didn't say there was.

Can you explain how that's not a possible end result of what you're advocating?

You're advocating a position, then getting upset when people point out the natural extension of that position.

Fair enough. You've obviously put a lot of thought into how you'd want it to work. I just wondered why.

It's not slavery, I can tell you that. This is an attempt at painting Libertarians as advocating slavery. It's one step forward and two steps back in this thread. I try to have a real discussion in this thread and I luckily have it with Packard. Then comes along Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum with the, "gotcha, Libertarians advocate slavery" bullshit of the OP.