Originally posted by ZahlanziIs it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?
http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1466-5-awful-things-i-learned-as-child-laborer-in-usa.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/do-children-harvest-your-food/254853/
Have you been around any of our big cities, where you can go out and see preteen girls street walking or selling drugs?
Where are the parents of kids that are working instead of getting educated?
16 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignAlthough I agree that simply not allowing children to work doesn't solve the problem, it does suggest there isn't a sufficient welfare policy for children. (or in this case poor wages for parents).
Is it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?
On this note, people who boycott child labour that takes place in other countries often harm the children not help them through their action.
Originally posted by normbenignFollowing that logic, why shouldn't children be able to support themselves by prostitution and/or selling drugs? IF they are competent enough to make enforceable labor contracts, they then should be able to do support themselves in those ways IF you are consistent in your "libertarian" principles,
Is it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?
Have you been around any of our big cities, where you can go out and see preteen girls street walking or selling drugs?
Where are the parents of kids that are working instead of getting educated?
Originally posted by normbenignIn a country that happily gives away 63 billion dollars in welfare to Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical, Exxonmobil and other corporate giants every year, we leave our children choose between life on the street or life at the mercy of the corporations. Whenever someone wants to divert a few grains of this corporate pork to help these children (rather than exploit them) the right wing cries SOCIALISM! I sure don't hear any protests when the fortune 500 happily sucks massive amounts of our tax dollars so some corporate big wig can buy a 3rd vacation home, or hide a few million $$ in some cozy offshore tax haven. And the right wing has the gall to cloak themselves in a veil of Christian purity?? Pardon me while I vomit! 😞
Is it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?
Have you been around any of our big cities, where you can go out and see preteen girls street walking or selling drugs?
Where are the parents of kids that are working instead of getting educated?
17 May 16
Originally posted by normbenign"Is it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to
Is it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?
Have you been around any of our big cities, where you can go out and see preteen girls street walking or selling drugs?
Where are the parents of kids that are working instead of getting educated?
survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?"
wtf is wrong with you? this would excuse any kind of child labor.
it shouldn't be a choice between back breaking work in toxic conditions and prostitution, not in a country that calls itself civilized.
and yes, of course welfare is bloody preferable to child labour, are you insane?
"Have you been around any of our big cities, where you can go out and see preteen girls street walking or selling drugs?"
yes, the answer to that is to round them up, send them to shanty houses and make them work for 3000 dollars a year in scorching heat near toxic substances.
"Where are the parents of kids that are working instead of getting educated?"
working alongside them because they are desperate. which the article says. which you didn't read.
17 May 16
Originally posted by normbenignMaybe it is just me, but I think it's preferable if children go to school where they have the opportunity to develop their skills and talents.
Is it better that children be able to work to support themselves, or to be locked out, to survive only by either begging, welfare, or prostitution?
Have you been around any of our big cities, where you can go out and see preteen girls street walking or selling drugs?
Where are the parents of kids that are working instead of getting educated?
17 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell Duh! Know anyone who doesn't think that.
Maybe it is just me, but I think it's preferable if children go to school where they have the opportunity to develop their skills and talents.
There are obviously places where children have to put survival ahead of education.
17 May 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraChildren can develop their skills and talents in places besides schools. Indeed most schools have little interest in developing an individual child's unique skills and talents; most are interested in broad based socialization and minimum levels of State-determined competency in specific areas.
Maybe it is just me, but I think it's preferable if children go to school where they have the opportunity to develop their skills and talents.
17 May 16
Originally posted by no1marauderOh please, take that hippie moaning to 1969. Yes, children "can" learn certain essential skills outside of schools but typically they don't so we need schools, and good ones.
Children can develop their skills and talents in places besides schools. Indeed most schools have little interest in developing an individual child's unique skills and talents; most are interested in broad based socialization and minimum levels of State-determined competency in specific areas.
17 May 16
Originally posted by normbenignThere are no places where it is impossible to send all children to school, and the USA most certainly is not among that empty list.
Well Duh! Know anyone who doesn't think that.
There are obviously places where children have to put survival ahead of education.
17 May 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat "hippie moaning" happens to be true. And what skills are "essential" really should be decided by individuals rather than the State.
Oh please, take that hippie moaning to 1969. Yes, children "can" learn certain essential skills outside of schools but typically they don't so we need schools, and good ones.
18 May 16
Originally posted by no1marauderAgreed! But the State determines the minimum education which it enforces on children to learn, and for adults to pay for. And it looks more and more like the choices of our education gurus aren't working.
That "hippie moaning" happens to be true. And what skills are "essential" really should be decided by individuals rather than the State.
Perhaps we need to think outside the box, which dictates publicly funded classes until age 16, which hardly qualifies anyone at that time even for entry level jobs. We know what keeping doing things that aren't working is. By 3rd or 4th grade most kids can read and do arithmetic. And many don't get much further, in another 8 years of public education.
Why not try something different?