Has libertarianism ever been tried in the real world?

[Ziggurat]

... so the entire history of labor in the US, and pretty much the world, is a red herring.

If you want to try to use it as an example of what libertarianism produces, well, yes.

There are two ways a laborer has any sort of real choice. One is if he has a special skill that provides some scarcity. The second is when capital is forced into some equal footing, be it by unions or government regulation or fear of same.

No. What you are searching for is some sort of equality between choices. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. Slaves don't simply have no better choice, they don't have a choice at all. You may not think that the difference matters, but I do. And so do libertarians.

I'm lost as to where this assumption comes from.

Personal experience, to start with. How many children do you know who would be willing to work for $0.50/hr? How many parents do you know who would be willing to send their children to work for such low wages? Perhaps that number is not zero, but the number I know certainly is.

 

[Earthborn]

Slaves don't simply have no better choice, they don't have a choice at all. You may not think that the difference matters, but I do.

The difference matters, but it is the difference does not exist between slaves and child labourers. In most cases, the children working in factories didn't have a choice either, so it isn't true that they were working there just because their alternatives were worse. It also isn't necessarily true that they didn't have a choice because their parents made the choice for them; they may not have had parents at all. And if they did, their parents may not have had a choice.

 

[Ziggurat]

The difference matters, but it is the difference does not exist between slaves and child labourers. In most cases, the children working in factories didn't have a choice either

If so, isn't the fact that they didn't have a choice in the matter the real problem?

It also isn't necessarily true that they didn't have a choice because their parents made the choice for them; they may not have had parents at all.

In which case the problem is guardianship. Without the factory jobs, they would still be screwed, perhaps even more so.

 

[David Wong]

Aaaaand with that, the question in the OP gets answered with, "If it hasn't, let's work to our dying break to make sure it never, ever, ever, ever is. Ever."

 

[Suddenly]

Personal experience, to start with. How many children do you know who would be willing to work for $0.50/hr? How many parents do you know who would be willing to send their children to work for such low wages? Perhaps that number is not zero, but the number I know certainly is.

Where is this place with no child labor laws, that has never had same, where your "experience" comes from?

A claim of "experience" with the lack of child labor laws by appealing to the (assumed) attitudes of people in a society with strong child labor laws is curious at best.

 

[jimbob]

If so, isn't the fact that they didn't have a choice in the matter the real problem?



In which case the problem is guardianship. Without the factory jobs, they would still be screwed, perhaps even more so.

The children and the parents didn't have a choice because of thioer poverty and lack of economic power.

Earlier I linked to the Factory Acts of the UK. These did progressively limit child labour, but they were wider in scope than that. In reality, the alternative was that the mill owner had to be a bit more humane in his conditions, and a bit less exploitative. The profits were still available. This meant that once the act was passed *and enforced* the alternative for the family was that adults did the work for a bit more money and the children went to school.

The work still existed, a pool of cheap, easily-exploitable labour was no longer competing for it.



Truck Acts



There was such disparity of economic power that the workers had no option. They were kept in a poverty trap, and provided with enough to subsist on but not enough to escape. This still happens in India, via money lending as opposed to payment in tokens (AFIK), but the effect is still similar.

I would argue that libertarianism can't work for the majority if there are beings (individual or corporate) with vastly more economic power than others.

<snip>

 

[Ziggurat]

Where is this place with no child labor laws, that has never had same, where your "experience" comes from?

That is not my claim. Which makes this a strawman.

A claim of "experience" with the lack of child labor laws by appealing to the (assumed) attitudes of people in a society with strong child labor laws is curious at best.

Why? Do you think it is merely the law which makes children uninterested in working for $0.50/hr? Do you think that many parents would force their children to work for such wages but are only stopped from doing so by these laws? That is the curious claim, not mine.

 

[Ziggurat]

The children and the parents didn't have a choice because of thioer poverty and lack of economic power.

No, jimbob. They didn't have a better choice. And that is exactly my point: the real problem was the lack of any better choice. Simply eliminating the choice to work doesn't help if their alternatives are not better. And if the alternatives are better, well, the laws become largely superfluous. As they are now in the US.

 

[Earthborn]

If so, isn't the fact that they didn't have a choice in the matter the real problem?

I don't think there are many people -- not even many Libertarians -- who think children having much less choice is necessarily a problem.

Without the factory jobs, they would still be screwed, perhaps even more so.

Perhaps even less so, if there are laws that limit what a guardian can legally do to a child.

 

[Ziggurat]

Perhaps even less so, if there are laws that limit what a guardian can legally do to a child.

As I already said, that is primarily an agency problem. If the parent or guardian is willing to harm the child for their own benefit, that is a problem in and of itself, and it will likely lead to bad consequences with or without child labor laws. And sadly, there are limits to how much protection the state can ever provide to such unfortunate children.

 

[Earthborn]

As I already said, that is primarily an agency problem.

Yes, it is an agency problem (whatever that means) that makes your claim "they worked in factories because the alternatives were worse" false. The alternatives may have easily been better, they just weren't allowed to have them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, it is an agency problem (whatever that means)

I gave a link before. Here it is again. Quite simply, when a person (the agent) makes decisions on behalf of someone else (the principal) and their interests don't coincide, problems can arise.

that makes your claim "they worked in factories because the alternatives were worse" false.

No, it doesn't. It just means that we have to consider the problem of "worse for whom". I think it's fair to say that most parents and guardians do have the best interests of their children at heart. Not all, but most.

 

[psychictv]

Simply eliminating the choice to work doesn't help if their alternatives are not better. And if the alternatives are better, well, the laws become largely superfluous. As they are now in the US.

This is another major flaw in the libertarian argument. Which is it, the regulations are harmful to the market, or they're superfluous? You can't have it both ways.

 

[ponderingturtle]

1. Zigg isn't a Libertarian.

So that makes the position reasonable now? You wanted to know who hated the idea of child labor laws, I showed one to you.

 

[Darth Rotor]

So that makes the position reasonable now? You wanted to know who hated the idea of child labor laws, I showed one to you.

No, you didn't.

I did not see Zigg anywhere stating a hate for child labor laws, but I have seen him discuss the topic, its roots and causes, with a number of thoughtful and eloquent posters, to include Suddenly.

DR

 

[Chaos]

As I already said, that is primarily an agency problem. If the parent or guardian is willing to harm the child for their own benefit, that is a problem in and of itself, and it will likely lead to bad consequences with or without child labor laws. And sadly, there are limits to how much protection the state can ever provide to such unfortunate children.

Then why are you so eager to reduce the amount of protection available, by making it easier for parents and guardians to abuse children even more? Because that´s the effect of eliminating child labour laws.

Eliminating child labor laws has exactly one benefit: it allows abusive parents and guardians to abuse their children more extensively and gain more of a benefit from abusing them. If you are in favor fo eliminating child labor laws, and do not wish to plead that you are too stupid to see the consequence, you´ll have to live with being considered in favor of allowing people to abuse their children for monetary gain.

 

[jimbob]

No, jimbob. They didn't have a better choice. And that is exactly my point: the real problem was the lack of any better choice. Simply eliminating the choice to work doesn't help if their alternatives are not better. And if the alternatives are better, well, the laws become largely superfluous. As they are now in the US.

They had Hobson's choice.

Send their children to work in the factory or starve. The presence of children available for work kept the wages down.

EDIT: And when the labour laws changed and were enforced, the parents had a better choice, the losers were the factory owners who were unable to make such a huge profit*.





*We are talking about the late 18th and Early 19th Centuries here, not the later "robber barons".

What about the truck Laws that I mentioned? Prohibiting the payment in company scrip? If you control.

What is the libertarian answer to slum landlords?

I am aware that you aren't a libertarian, so I am surprised that you are defending libertarianism so enthusiastically.

 

[jimbob]

Of course Johnathan Swift highlighted a similar problem.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then why are you so eager to reduce the amount of protection available, by making it easier for parents and guardians to abuse children even more?

Where did Zigg indicate being if favor of reducing protection? The man made of straw won't scare many crows.

Eliminating child labor laws has exactly one benefit: it allows abusive parents and guardians to abuse their children more extensively and gain more of a benefit from abusing them.

What? Eliminiating child labor laws increases child abuse? I don't follow you.

If you are in favor fo eliminating child labor laws, and do not wish to plead that you are too stupid to see the consequence, you´ll have to live with being considered in favor of allowing people to abuse their children for monetary gain.

Chaos, how does one follow from the other?

I worked part time after school sweeping floors in an apartment building. I was 12 at the time. Was I being abused?

My brother delivered papers at age 11, every morning. I occasionally helped him, to earn a few coins. I was 9. Was I being abused?

(Hint: the answer starts with N in both English and German.)

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

Then why are you so eager to reduce the amount of protection available, by making it easier for parents and guardians to abuse children even more?

Who ever said I am?

Eliminating child labor laws has exactly one benefit: it allows abusive parents and guardians to abuse their children more extensively and gain more of a benefit from abusing them.

Except that's not a benefit at all. To label it as such is simply to poison the well. A genuine benefit would be to allow children for whom school offers little benefit a chance to enter the work force and learn marketable skills at an earlier age, with a possibly very large increase in their lifetime earning potential. And the children for whom this could be most beneficial are precisely the ones that end up at the bottom of the social ladder right now, the ones every bleeding heart wants to help so badly but never seems to manage to.

As with almost everything, there really aren't only benefits to enacting child labor laws. You are attempting to justify such laws not on any serious analysis of the relative weights of those benefits versus drawbacks, but simply on the position that there are only benefits and no drawbacks. But that's simply not the case.

If you are in favor fo eliminating child labor laws

You have no idea whether or not I'm in favor of eliminating child labor laws. You only assume as much because I haven't adopted your absurd absolutist position.