Using your reasoning, if only one person was allowed to work, we would have utopia. Give me a break.
Yes, except I see no difference what so ever between Rothbard’s description of “trustee ownership” and children having full adult rights. I think the notion that parents become owners of there children is rather absurd. Ownership is absolute and eternal. If they can up and leave there is apparently no form of ownership at all involved and they are no different then anyone else living under your roof, you could regulate an adult living of your income just as much as child.
I don’t see anything that could be different then an adult. You couldn’t even force parents as “trustee owners” to take financial responsibility for criminal acts committed by there children cause that would be a positive right for the child to have crime insurance covered by the parents and same as them having a right to food or whatever which Rothbard says they don’t have soo…
Yepp, we had an introduction to quantum physics in high school too. Neither that or theory of relativity was on any test but they spend a couple of weeks on each like “look at his interesting shit it is crazy, particles are moving backward in time”.
Natural sciences was pretty awesome the last 6 years of lower education. Though it could have been compressed somewhat or at least have had the same division between advanced and basic courses that we had in English. (That has been removed now I think because it was considered discriminatory for some pupils to have advanced mathematics and English while others had basic).
That there is no room for above average students to move forward faster then the rest and find challenges is obviously a major problem all government school systems.
The other is that social sciences can be pretty much shit. I was very lucky with teachers in that regards and probably got one of the only mainstream free-market political science teachers in Sweden, after that we had a dude with a question everything attitude, he always argued convincingly for the opposing position against whatever he was presented with, including the socialist textbook. Also I remember being though that the American civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
So it is not all bad, even if it could be tons better and there are probably public schools that are way worse then those I attended.
I think the point I am trying to make is that I doubt working would have given me a better upbringing and preparation for adult life. Public schools are still a better option then like a part time job and home study. Especially since any job you could get without knowing anything, and not being motivated and disciplined as is usually the case with kids would be shit.
But there are probably many people that would benefit from a more practical education then sitting 9-12 years in a classroom (for the last 3 we actually have very practical education programs for mechanics and whatnot). Such an education would probably come in conflict with child-labour laws.
Thanks everyone!
Valid argument. The only concern I have is the fact that the state also restricts the ability for minors to contract. Legally anyone under the age of 18 is entitled to walk out of any contract with absolutely no penalty or obligations. This is the reason you can not get a loan if you are a minor.
I’m implying that there’s a certain point in a child’s life when they start to grow independent (or more independent rather) than before. If your 4 years old you’re not going to know what decisions you’re making, nor will you know the legality of what you do. The child is the creation of the parents, and is their property (and responsibility) till that child comes to realize it’s own independence.
It’s not whether going to school or work at a younger is better, it’s that you shouldn’t be forced by the State to do so. You shouldn’t be forced to go to school, just as you shouldn’t be forced out of the oppurtunity of getting a job at a young age.