As Gary Johnson puts it:

I think there are a lot of kids today, let’s say 13 year-olds, 10 year-olds, that have better knowledge of computers than a 70 year-old. And because of our child labor laws, you can’t pay one of those 10 year-olds, 13 year-olds for a few dollars an hour to help out the 70 year-old with their computer, their computer problems, which might exist if we didn’t have child labor laws.

We need to drop retirement too!

besides child labor laws, there’s the whole notion of you retire and you can’t go back to work for the 75 year-old or the 80 year-old who still has contributions to make.

Libertarianism: the sane choice for a civilized future. Thanks, MGSB, for convincing me.

Hi Derek! My name's Little Cletus and I'm here to tell you a few things about child labor laws, ok? They're silly and outdated. Why back in the 30s, children as young as five could work in textile mills and iron sheds. Yippee! Hurray!

Thought you mugatued out for a minute.

Deregulate the banks. It'll be great they said.

I think there are a lot of kids today, let’s say 13 year-olds, 10 year-olds, that have better knowledge of computers than a 70 year-old. And because of our child labor laws, you can’t pay one of those 10 year-olds, 13 year-olds for a few dollars an hour to help out the 70 year-old with their computer, their computer problems, which might exist if we didn’t have child labor laws.


So children being paid to help the elderly is bad? If anything, this would be great for kids. They learn more about the internet and computers to get better for the job, and get money for their positive to society.

besides child labor laws, there’s the whole notion of you retire and you can’t go back to work for the 75 year-old or the 80 year-old who still has contributions to make.


So changing a culture to destigmagize the idea of working past a certain age is bad? He's not saying to force folk back to work or anything, just that you shouldn't be shamed for going back to work.

*Insert screenshot of Knyte in a past thread saying how arguing politics in a Risk Simulator Browser Game Forums is pointless*

You know Knyte, tell me how your ideology of constant warfare against anyone who opposes the state, will help children? Seems like those thousands of dead children seem to speak to how your ideology injures them much more than mine.

Back in my country where a parent can arrange a job for his child above the age of 15 against the consent of the child. It's horrible.

Yeah and worldwide the state can take your children and just accuse you of child abuse, and you'd have no recourse to get your children back. Don't see much outcry from you folk for this.

Hey Knyte, why were you against the Iraq War again? If I remember correctly, he did gas "his own" folk time from time, and was defintely opposed to the US. So why be against it? It's exactly what you would want to happen in Syria, so what's the problem?

There's no such precise law that exists in my country. There's indeed a law about child abuse but that comes together with the burden of proof. Charges without proof count as unvalid.

And what exactly has that to do with my experience? I was employed by a company for 4 weeks I did not have signed for. Yet it was my dad who forced me to do it and only he signed the papers against my consent.

(Forgot to mention that this situation is completely legal under Belgian laws)

Edited 8/23/2016 00:21:17

There's no such precise law that exists in my country. There's indeed a law about child abuse but that comes together with the burden of proof. Charges without proof count as unvalid.

The state doesn't have to provide proof; it can filibuster for as long as it wants and the parent is out of luck.

And what exactly has that to do with my experience? I was employed by a company for 4 weeks I did not have signed for. Yet it was my dad who forced me to do it and only he signed the papers against my consent.

Ok. This problem would exist in both state and private law; and it could be cured in both state and private law.

Child Abuse is a serious problem though.. I've heard some miserable and sick stories of children being forced into prostitution when they were born... those people that have been raised by selling their bodies to a stranger on the internet are seen as complete strangers by the public for the rest of their life.

Child Abuse is a serious problem though.. I've heard some miserable and sick stories of children being forced into prostitution when they were born... those people that have been raised by selling their bodies to a stranger on the internet are seen as complete strangers by the public for the rest of their life.

That doesn't negate that the state is afforded protections in it's dealings that allow it to not give proof or filibuster it's way through oblivion on children being kidnapped by the state.

Let's say there is a ancap town and a statist town. The Ancap town has private law enforcement, the town has signed some stuff with them, and votes each year on whether they will replace the private law enforcement or not. They are paid either through a small voluntary payment (taxes are involuntary) or by business owners who don't want criminals running amok.

The statist town has law enforcement that is paid by the state, which is paid through involuntary means (taxes) and cannot be kicked out if they're corrupt or just plain bad.

If the private law enforcement kidnap a kid and accuse a parent of child abuse with no evidence, that parent could show everyone there is no evidence, and people could directly get at the private law enforcement's money. A business owner wouldn't want to pay corrupt police because the corrupt police would probably be ok with accepting bribes from criminals. The general public would react of course harshly to this thing.

If the state police do this, the people can vote new politicians in to try and fix it, but the police still would be getting their money and the politicians could only get so far in a corrupt system. The police have no incentive to let go of the child.

In both, child abuse that is actually perpetrated can be punished, but only in one can you keep police from you know, committing that crime.

The state doesn't have to provide proof; it can filibuster for as long as it wants and the parent is out of luck.

It does. At least in Belgium as far I'm aware. I don't know how crooked the average lawyer in America is but I've seen some interesting documentaries on those cases specifically targetting Jewish lawyers. Law and Justice? It always requires proof. Child abuse trials in Belgium have recieved a lot of media attention in daily newspapers every since the case of Marc Dutroux. Such cases are always taken seriously. And whenever an error occures in trials it hits front pages. Everything's documentated. Not even one couple lost its children to due abuse this year. Your words need context? If the state really can fillibuster them without proof then I want to hear your experience with this.

Or maybe this is a problem in certain Americain states but you exagerate your words and claim it is worldwide

Law and order is much different from the United States and Europe. I think it's crazy to say that people pay a fortune only to get divorced and end up in poverty and spend the rest of your life on the porch. Well in my country at least we don't have that.. even the most violent islamist terrorist that is responsible for more than 100 deaths can have its own lawyer. The same law that makes it possible that you can re-appeal in court 100 times again until get the justice you deserve!

Edited 8/23/2016 01:02:27

Proof is mandatory under our laws.

your ancap utopia doesn't stop people from being corrupt. Bitch. The current country with the most corruption in the world is Somalia with more than 90% being corrupted. Yes and those are actual statistics according to the global perception index.

western Europe is the least corrupt region in the world. America falls far behind.

Is proof mandatory under your laws?

Edited 8/23/2016 01:20:54

I would gladly help an elderly person fix their computer for 7-10$ an hour. Not just because I agree with capitalism with little restrictions, because I know more about computers than my peers and would therefore be a better assistant, and I would thus end up getting payed more than them. Capitalism works if you are a risk taker and have skills.

I don't get this post...is is against child work..? I don't see the problem...

@Zeph:

> implying this is an argument of any kind

Wait...so holiday jobs are illegal in America?