I understand nearly all of Austrian theory when it comes to the structure of production and why all state interventions are destructive and I agree with nearly all of it. There is only a single area where I am still undecided and this is in the area of child labor.
So simply thinking about this for a few seconds: Child labor is banned (or heavily restricted), thusly the remaining workers can begin to bid up the price of their labor. Normally when a section of the work force is cut off this results in higher wages for the rest of the population but, of course, unemployment for that section which is cut out. Child labor is different in this respect however because the child directly benefits from the increased wages of the parent.
Now that the child can no longer work it suddenly becomes more profitable to become trained in other areas and fields, AKA become educated and diversify one’s labor, invest in their individual future. In this way although productivity is decreased and prices will rise, or at least not fall at the rate that they would otherwise, the families can still pay as, or nearly as well as they would be otherwise and therefore the child can become educated and thusly contribute more to society, and gain more himself, at a later date.
So what is the libertarian defense for not enacting child labor legislation, particularly in more developed countries where it wouldn’t be as prevalent anyway due to the higher standard of living?
I don’t understand how a family benefits from lower total income.
Working as an apprentice is precisely how children used to be educated for working life. Now that this has been outlawed, children are forced to rely on state education for ever longer years, which forces the state to hire more educators, and those educators then write articles denouncing child labor.
If the children do not work then less stuff is being made. The child does not benefit from the higher wages of the parent, because the prices go up seeing less stuff is being made.
In comparison it is slightly lower/about the same as it was originally but direct wages will go up, and then according to my assumption (which your lower statement attempts to disprove) that education means a larger amount of potential for diversification of labor and better job opportunities in future, this means that there will be a payoff in future, one which most would find preferable over the natural market alternative.
Are you suggesting that in a free market apprenticeship would be the only/major way of being educated? Wouldn’t schools still exist and indeed become more efficient at educating students? My biggest problem with the apprenticeship idea is that I can see how it would in alot of ways destine children to the days of the medieval era where your profession was pretty much chosen for you by your parent at a young age.
Trust me, I am not saying that the benefits of child labor legislation is worth keeping the state around, this is more a case of gathering ammunition for possible arguments in future than anything else.
I understand the anti legislation in poor countries with already poor wages because the cheapness of the labor is exactly what makes them profitable. But what of cases where the consequences are not so dire that the alternative is starvation, simply being poorer?
Also in the industrial revolution where it wasn’t worth moving shop because wages were crappy everywhere would there have been any negative consequences of child labor legislation?
I’m assuming that in an otherwise free market wages would generally be high enough or become high enough to make sure that there were few or no starving people and those that would be could be taken care of by charity. I said “restriction” not “ban” so above cases, being trivial, having short hours, and being safe, would be allowed, I’m talking about longer/more dangerous work being banned.
Once more, I am an anarchist, this is simply speculation and preparing myself for some probable future arguments
How is this different? You still decrease the household’s income while increasing prices.
Except you know if they could afford education they would be in education. Most parents want what is best for there children.
You can’t just wave a magical wand and create the funds necessary to keep children in schools which is what you are doing here.
The money to increase wages don’t just pop out of nowhere.
Let the parents decide if their child should be banned from working. Let a company decide whether it will hire children.
You don’t know everyone’s preferences. Some children may hate education and just want to work.
No single person or entity is qualified to determine what is best for people.
Restriction of liberty, however small, for the sake of a perceived, better end is how statism has become predominant.
Rothbard as well as most anarcho-capitalists detest utilitarian ideas such as yours for the very reason that they inevitably lead to the “next step” i.e. safety regulations in factories, licensing professionals, taxes for pollution. etc. etc. etc.
So in that case, ban the mother also from work and the father will bring home a higher wage. Ban everybody except you and you will be wealthier? What is wrong with this logic?
You misunderstand me, this is a test to see if I can find rational market explination against child labor legislation. I am an anarchist, this is equivelent to saying that burning somone is good for drying them off. The statement is perfectly true but it absurd as a practicle solution. This is mainly in the case of an argument between me and a statist.
Child labor laws ban children from learning a trade (or actual skills and knowledge that applies to the world around) at a young age. The State (in accordance with this) makes it a law that your child must also attend [government] school. Can’t work by law, attend school by law, those are the choices. This actually destroys what a child can learn, and what could actually stimulate their brain to actually think. The child is still the parents property up to a certain age, and till the point the parents can decide whether or not their child will work, whether the child wants to out of curiousity, or because the family needs the income. Today children can/could still get odd jobs (such as yard work in their neighborhood), but banning child labor outright is against their own freedom.
I don’t know how others on this forum feel, but after I graduated high school, and started reading the correct books on history and government (with lots of Rothbard added in) I actually was furious I had to go to school for so long, and I hardly remember anything I was taught! I could have worked and self taught myself the necessities instead of going to school.
As far as schools are concerned: Education: Free and Compulsory
The “rational market explanation” you posted in you topic post was based on a utilitarian argument - the children’s parents would earn more wages and the child would be able to get an education that would increase his future earnings.
Utilitarian arguments are very weak. Statists live on utilitarian arguments - “We need the State to do X, or else bad thing Y will happen.” of "We need the state to force people to do X, because benefits Y, and Z will result.
The logical answer is simple; the child has been forced (at gunpoint or by some other forceful means) to not work and this violates the nonaggression axiom. If you don’t accept the nonaggression axiom, then there’s no point in continuing the discussion.
Are you going to force children to stop working at the point of a gun because they don’t know they could be getting an education and because they are reducing the wages of their competitors? Would you throw them in prison? Fine them?
Truly, what would you recommend happen to a child who was "caught " doing voluntary work?
Do they outweigh the costs? Are they consistent with individual preferences (child’s wards’ or perhaps its own; if they are not acting in its best interests, their custody over it may be questioned anyway, so that is a separate issue)? Those backing such laws are more interested in outlawing a form of low cost labour than the individual welfare of “children”, which may at any rate be serviced by taking up employment from young.
I understand the inherent immorality of the state and I hate utilitarianism as much as you do, but if I can rationally explain to a statist why somthing as simple as child labor is negative then that would be great.
No, children are self-owners. Parents can “regulate” them only because they live of the parents property. But the child is always free to seek a new home or whatever.
Schools have many good qualities for learning usable skills, but government education of-course is inefficient. I recon I could have gone lower education in about half the time it took and come out with a high motivation for learning … rather then having it destroyed.
Generally I think people blame the school system for way to much though, parents play a much bigger role in making kids susceptible to new ideas I think. At least learning a still pretty contradictory perspective in school didn’t seem to do a thing to the people in my classes that came with religious fundamentalism (we don’t have any creationism bs), nazism or syndicalism from home…
Then again it might be true about American schools, where natural sciences don’t seem to be emphasised at all. We learned tons of useful stuff in high school … like the theory of relativity, how to mix explosives, build robots, how to build a spaceship that can take us to another solar-system and how snakes look crawling on a nylon carpet…
“So what is the libertarian defense for not enacting child labor legislation, particularly in more developed countries where it wouldn’t be as prevalent anyway due to the higher standard of living?”
Freedom to contract.
Children have rights though for many of them parents ac as overseers and guardians.Children have the right to contract.Child labour laws in the U.S. (maybe the world I’m not sure) began with labour unions who wanted to restrict competition( I learnt this from either walter block or tom dilorenzo).
The child is the creation of the parents. They are the sole owners of that child til the child is old enough to make it’s own decisions. The child can seek a new home, or runaway, if he or she wishes to do so. I believe Rothbard covered this in his Kid’s Lib essay.
None of the schools I went to really taught anything other than the basics year after year. I remember going over protons and neutrons year after year in science class. Some thing in English class, same thing in history class, etc etc. I think when it came to math that’s the only thing where we actually did something else the next year. I’m probably the only person I know of who despised elementary school (plus I think I was being taught completely wrong stuff in history). When I was in AP history my junior year I thought I was learning some in depth information, then to realize I just wasted my time that year learning about really irrelevant facts that the test at the end of the year had nothing to do with. (Sugar coat the reasons for the Great Depression, lets talk about the art created during the Great Depression!)
Theory of relativity in high school? My high school shop class didn’t even have enough supplies to build a picnic table.