Banning Child Labor Pushes Street Kids Into Crime
from the article: "The world over, as per the estimates of the United Nations, there are up to 150 million street children. Almost every city in the world, even the biggest and most developed ones, have street children. These children are vulnerable to all forms of exploitation and abuse."
KH:"just as cruel."
It occurs to me for children who need to work to pay for a home, it a child labor law that exempted homeless children would create a catch-22.
I don't know what to think of this issue. I agree with using gov't force to prevent parents from making really bad decisions for their kids, like denying them a proven treatment for a grave illness. I don't agree with using gov't force to make parents doing things like vaccinate their kids or have their kids use helmets, even though these are proven to save lives. It's just not direct enough.
So I think of the case of a family sending their kids to work in a manual job with no opportunity for learning new skills instead of sending their kids to school. That's worse than failing to vaccinate. It's not as bad as denying them treatment for a grave illness.
I always have these discussions with my wife who was from a troubled/poor background. She hates gov't handouts, but supports a gov't nanny-state forcing parents to do basic responsible things for their kids b/c the kids can't do it for themselves and some parents won't rise to the occasion. I say when the gov't makes parenting rules (helmets, car seats, vaccines, school instead of work), it promotes the idea of gov't as the responsible authority in kids' lives.
I hate the notion of gov't making life a little harder for these homeless kids. Then I think about poor kids who live in a home with severely alcoholic parents and their friends, and gov't force takes them out of that and makes them go to school.
Govt (or anyone for that matter) not using force to stop someone from doing something is not tantamount to their approving of the activity.
Some people see it that way. They see gov't as encouraging people to eat Taco Bell, go to payday lenders, have affairs, lead sedentary lifestyles with insufficient aerobic exercise, let kids watch TV all evening every day b/c they're not trying to jail people for it. In their mind men with guns hauling people away the default position, except for gov't-encouraged activities where they grant societally-approved license for people to do something in peace.
This is all backwards. People have the right to be left alone. Making stupid behavior illegal, just turns over all power to state, since being stupid sometimes is part of the human experience. We should only use force in direct self-defense.
Most of your arguments cite “society” as the arbiter of appropriate behavior. “Society” recognizes the morality or immorality of certain actions. “Society” affixes penalties for certain actions. “Society” makes recreational drug use illegal.
I asked you earlier if you put the wishes of "society" above individual rights. You said I was mistaken. I think I am not.
Why does society through law affix penalties for certain actions? Answer: as a disincentive to that behavior. It is to try to dissuade the individual from taking a certain action by assigning a penalty which rational people find extreme enough to tip the scale of opportunity cost and perceived value against such an action. That's key right there: the whole rational people thing. When people are irrational (such as in the case in question on mind-altering substances), the natural disincentives of certain choices get discarded or ignored. People who have done some immoral things are much more likely to engage in other immoral things. But one immoral act does not and can not justify another, nor can the immorality of one act justify the morality of another.
"Anti-drug laws raise the price of street drugs"
That goes without saying. The only argument here is on the price of drugs - not their underlying morality.
"Heavy enforcement costs... Diversion of law enforcement resources"
The CDC costs out impaired driving accidents at $44 BILLLION annually and a cost of 28 lives daily (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety.... "according to government estimates, alcohol problems add $36 billion to the nation's health care bill." (http://www.alcoholcostcalculator.org/.... Can you offset that $80 BILLION with your proposed law enforcement savings? We haven't even added in the value of lost inventions, the psychological problems with children of abusers, etc. I think that if you run the numbers, we're already well behind and the problem gets worse - not better - with legalization.
"Corruption within law enforcement..."
Again, a justification of immoral behavior because of other immoral behavior. It's a false argument.
"More people (including schoolchildren) introduced to the drug culture..."
And that rate is somehow going to go down with legalization and lower prices? I don't think so.
"More welfare costs..."
I was pretty sure that as Objectivists we agree that government welfare is immoral and thus not a valid justification for a moral activity... Given that to be the case, this would be another "immoral justifying immoral" argument I'm going to discard as invalid.
"The “lawlessness of drug cartels..."
And you think that somehow their moral compass is going to change if drugs are legalized? Again - is the act immoral because of its profitability or is it immoral because it deprives people of rational thought?
"the extent of these problems would be a small fraction of what it is today..."
Prove first of all that the incidence of problems would go down (which given the laws of supply and demand is completely illogical). Second, prove that the ancillary costs such as those I cited above would also decrease. This statement is nothing but unsubstantiated conjecture.
"we all would not be facing the heavy financial cost and loss of liberty arising from the government’s futile attempt to control personal behavior."
The whole problem with mind-altering drugs is a loss of individual control of personal behavior. What is worse is that it isn't the government trying to take it away, but it is the individual choosing to divest himself or herself of that control! You're trying to argue that telling people not to give away their rational abilities is an immoral act simply because it comes from the peoples' own authorized representatives?
Precisely. There is only risk mitigation. I see no need to assume the risk of someone else's choices - especially when the choices stem from intentionally abandoning rational thought and personal control.
"In fact, a lock does not keep someone from breaking into your home."
No, but it limits my exposure to risk. Legalizing drugs widens my exposure to risk from many undesirable behaviors. You and others here seem to be willing to take those risks. If I want risks, I'll go play the stock market. If people want to separate themselves from society for the entire period of time under which they are chemically altered, I can probably agree with that. But those aren't the conditions being proposed. What is being proposed is a societally-approved and unfettered mixture of the irrational and literally delusional person together with the rational and sane. To me, that's nuts. There is a reason we institutionalize people who can't discern reality - to keep the rest of us safe from their irrational behavior.
"no need for the ad hominem."
I made an observation about myself and where I apparently differ from the other opinions in this conversation. Ad hominem is calling someone else names. I respectfully retain the right to call myself whatever I choose ;)
no need for the ad hominem.
Heavy enforcement costs, in manpower and sometimes in lives, due to the increased number of drug dealers, many of them well-armed.
Diversion of law enforcement resources from controlling actual crime to fighting the drug trade.
Corruption within law enforcement, since it becomes profitable to bribe policemen to look the other way.
More people (including schoolchildren) introduced to the drug culture, due to its profitability.
More welfare costs, due to the higher number of people introduced to the drug culture.
The “lawlessness of drug cartels” financed by the high prices and profitability of the drug trade, courtesy of the anti-drug laws.
Contrary to your assertions, it is the “financial costs of obtaining the chemicals” and not the “use of the chemical agents at all” that causes most of the problems I cited. If the drug trade weren’t so profitable, thanks to the anti-drug laws, the extent of these problems would be a small fraction of what it is today, and we all would not be facing the heavy financial cost and loss of liberty arising from the government’s futile attempt to control personal behavior.
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. If we permit or encourage individuals through lawmaking to diminish their rational capacities, we encourage a loss of productivity and a loss of reason from that individual and we as potential customers lose out on benefiting from the exchange of the products of their minds. (BTW - I have no idea who Cary Nation is) We also agree to the risks and the costs that come from impaired judgement.
I look at the morality of the issue first and foremost and the economy second. I am obviously alone in my sentiment, so I'll sign off here unless there is a significant question being asked. I thank you all for your polite conversation.
this is a completely socialist statement and leads to all sorts of problems. If I do harm to myself -but nobody else, why is it any of your business? If, under the influence, I harm others, there are myriad laws on the books to punish and keep citizens safe. It is not the role of a proper government to create "society knows best" rules. That is immoral. By all means, educate and get your message out to influence, but laws? good grief. are you channeling Cary Nation?
on a practical note. If you outlaw, you de facto have created a black market for that stuff you outlawed. The same is true for taxes on products "society" deems unhealthy for you. drive the price up enough, and there is a healthy street market (backed up by weapons and crime) to make communities worse off than they were before you implemented a stupid prohibition law.
Morality must be determined first and foremost. If you can demonstrate how the legalization of recreational drugs is not a license to abandon reality, we can then discuss costs. Without that, however, your argument fails on principle.
"The anti-drug laws are much more destructive to both economic growth and personal liberty than drugs themselves."
You tell yourself that if you choose. Enslaving one's mind and will to chemicals does not qualify in my book as any form of personal liberty.
Many people choose to take the easy way out. Crime has always existed because people choose to seek to enrich themselves at the cost of others. How they choose to do so changes with the times. But to argue that it's just too hard to enforce the law - regardless of the consequences to the people? If that's the argument you have in favor of legalizing drugs, you've already lost the most important argument: that of the morality of the underlying principle.
Load more comments...