libertarian labour

And you've hit on the fundamental intellectual flaw of libertarians and other economic arch-conservatives everywhere.

No, you're intentionally being obtuse. No one is saying that you're directly advocating slavery. But what you're advocating is something that has the potential to lead to slavery. If that wasn't your intent, then the onus is on you to modify your original stance to make that clear.

Funny bringing up slavery, as you could argue that it has been one of the "logical conclusions" of democracy.

Then show how it isn't.

How so?

Lose the emotional knee-jerk, and courtroom theatrics, and answer the question.

This.

Because I was asked about what I thought (once we got past the retardedness of the OP). Then I thought about this guy I used to work with who brought his son in to work with him during the summer every once in a while. BTW, I work at a upscale bistro, but at the time I worked at an upscale seafood restaurant. The kid was 12 at the time. At first I was not cool with it because I don't think kids should be running around in a kitchen. Anyway, the kid did light work like rolling silverware, helping with busing, pouring non-alcoholic drinks for the servers and just simple things like that. The kid wasn't officially on the clock of course, but the servers tipped him out. In my mind, it was a win/win situation. The kid made a little money, learned responsibility and his dad didn't have to worry about him getting in trouble and the servers had more time to help out the customers and they didn't have to worry about the little things and all of this leads to better service all around, which means happy customers and the business makes more money. I don't see anything wrong with this and I can see a place for younger kids to be active contributors to the workplace. I certainly don't see how that correlates to me advocating slavery.

Also, this.

You didn't ask a fucking question dipshit.

Show me how it is. Here we go again with the bullshit logic of you make a blanket statement that's unsubstantiated, then you challenge me to prove that your claim isn't true.

Opposition to what? WTF are you talking about?

Thank you for a thoughtful answer.

However, having a kid help out in the family business is a whole lot different than sweatshop labor.

Slavery, of course.

See Post #74.

Nobody is talking about factory work, have you read anything I wrote? I wrote a theoretical law allowing kids under the age of 15 to work. I was asked what kind of legislation I would writ, I gave an example of what I would write, none of it advocated kids working in sweat shops.

I want to go on record as a member of this board and the Republican Party and an Eagle Scout in the Boy Scouts of America that I do not advocate slavery.

Why not?
Someone's always going to exploited, after all.

Okay, but there are problems with adding that kind of legislation to what’s already in place. First, you’re adding an extra layer to the inspection process, where you’ll have to hire inspectors to go around to every family-owned business and, while possibly helping out a few kids whose families are overworking them or exposing them to hazardous conditions, you’ll also have a lot of inspector discretion where they’re finding violations just to fill out a quota. Then you get the restaurant owner slipping the inspector a few bills every month to look the other way.

Then you’ll have the sweatshop owners who’ll use the legislation as a loophole. “Oh, those six kids working the sewing machines in the back? They’re my nieces and nephews. Aren’t you? Smile at the nice inspector, kids.” And friendly folks like Newt Gingrich proposing firing adults and employing kids in their place:

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/news/la-pn-gingrich-child-labor-20111121

How long would it take your boss to replace you with a kid or two?

Also at what level do you impose this legislation – federal, state, municipality? There are already a multiplicity of laws at the state and municipal level, and even union regs regarding child actors, etc. Add another layer of bureaucracy to that and, IMO, you’re only complicating things.

I posted a similar argument to this piece several years ago, which was soundly derided by the Wordforge "libertarians" who embrace a violence culture.

Yeah, people do tend to get upset when you exaggerate anything they say into indefensible strawmen.

"Eating is good."
"You want everybody to gorge until they die!!!1one"

Yeah, that wouldn't be upsetting to anybody...

Okay, so which regulations do you want?

Can I take it from this that you are denouncing your Red Room character?

Where do you get 'denouncing'? I'm merely explaining.

Read the thread.

I thought the whole thing was about your objection to the depiction of factory work?

Now what's your position on free trade with pacific rim countries that do indeed use child and indentured labour? Should the tariffs and restrictions that once discouraged this outsourcing of domestic jobs be reinstated, or is slavery okay when it's in other countries and you only buy the products?

The problem is that the more common-sense sort of libertarians -- people who are simply cautious about the role of government and want to seek other solutions first, and are generally pro-personal liberty even if it comes from the federal government telling states they can't trample on their own citizens -- are constantly competing for attention with the other kind.

The other kind, of course, are the Ayn Rand-worshiping overgrown teenagers ... the states'-rights fetishists who would have been at home in the antebellum South, whose rhetoric sounds an awful lot like the dog-whistle politics that Republicans have been using since Nixon ... the knee-jerk strict constructionists who are convinced it's still 1789 ... the shrieking radicals who think it's kewl to be as absolutist as possible. Think Castle when he goes off on one of his "all taxation is theft" rants.

The question THIS thread raises, of course, is whether Castle is aware that he is his own strawman, or if he's somehow blissfully ignorant of it.