Child Labor

[Stir]

Government should establish rules so that we can peacefully co-exist. Hence, no murder, rape, theft, etc. Government should not be involved in things that individuals engage in that do not affect others. (like masturbation, or religious belief, for example)

If you don't like it: Move to North Korea, and see for yourself.

You yourself insert a very important caveat that was not included in your original point: 'Things that individuals engage in that do not affect others.' That is absolutely pivotal to my argument.

[Grym]

Personally, i think the age of 14 should be enough to do paper rounds even younger perhaps; and 15/16 for real part time jobs, flipping burgers or stacking shelves.

The age of 8 should be enough for gold farming.

[Daerio]

You yourself insert a very important caveat that was not included in your original point: 'Things that individuals engage in that do not affect others.' That is absolutely pivotal to my argument.

Government should not act as babysitter for our society, making sure we don't do things that some "higher authority" (aka other human beings, not gods living on Earth) thinks we might 'hurt ourselves' by doing.

It was there, you just chose to ignore it.

[Stir]

It was there, you just chose to ignore it.

Things that might hurt yourself have nothing to do with masturbation or religion, and may VERY WELL affect others adversely. Like serfdom, for instance.

[Daerio]

Things that might hurt yourself have nothing to do with masturbation or religion, and may VERY WELL affect others adversely. Like serfdom, for instance.

Some people think masturbation is evil, and it is hurtful - both to yourself and society. The same with religion - if you aren't the kind of person that regularly attends church, you're the kind of person that causes plagues and floods, and that's the reason god gave AIDS to the gays.

It's an example of what "some people" think government should enforce on the populace for the good of society. Yet, not everyone agrees, eh? Also, I don't know what that has to do with serfdom, perhaps making legal contractual agreements which are in fact ultimately bad for you? Those things still exist with the consent of the government.

[Stir]

Some people think masturbation is evil, and it is hurtful - both to yourself and society. The same with religion - if you aren't the kind of person that regularly attends church, you're the kind of person that causes plagues and floods, and that's the reason god gave AIDS to the gays.

It's an example of what "some people" think government should enforce on the populace for the good of society. Yet, not everyone agrees, eh? Also, I don't know what that has to do with serfdom, perhaps making legal contractual agreements which are in fact ultimately bad for you? Those things still exist with the consent of the government.

You're arguing from the point of relative morality and irrational belief. I'm arguing from the point of absolute morality derived from the principle of harm. They cannot be compared. Let's say I agree that governments should never force things based on opinion. A majority dictatorship is not in any way a 'protective government.'

[Daerio]

You're arguing from the point of relative morality and irrational belief. I'm arguing from the point of absolute morality derived from the principle of harm.

There is no absolute morality, and 'harm' can mean many different things.

Suffice to say, the point is that OUR government should not be involved in outlawing parents from allowing their children to become actors, if they (the parents) want to. Government is not a substitute for parents, and does not circumvent them. Treading down that path is dangerous.

Additionally, when people say "child labor", they usually mean something very different than child stars in America.

[Stir]

There is no absolute morality, and 'harm' can mean many different things.

Suffice to say, the point is that OUR government should not be involved in outlawing parents from allowing their children to become actors, if they (the parents) want to. Government is not a substitute for parents, and does not circumvent them. Treading down that path is dangerous.

I disagree with the premise that there is no absolute morality. And harm can not mean many different things. We can fool ourselves into believing that it can (as you demonstrated when you mentioned masturbation), but that does not make morality relative. A relative morality is not so much a morality as it is a cultural dogma, and the two are not the same.

Government is not a substitute for parents, but it's not just a parent's job to protect their children. It's everybody's job to protect everybody (which makes it the government's job because of democracy), but it's not the government's job to raise children (which is the parent's job).

I believe that a government should treat acting as any other profession. A straight-line law enforcement. In this particular case, the government doesn't protect the children from themselves, but from their parents.

You say that governments should not concern themselves with individual's lives, and that the path is dangerous. The alternative, however, is equally dangerous because people are stupid. As history teaches us. Some of us are aware of our stupidity, but I dare say a majority of us is not. And I believe it is utterly naive to expect a positive outcome from allowing those unaware of their stupidity to persist in said stupidity. Because this harms not just themselves, but also their children and the rest of their environment.

[Anodur]

That is exactly what a government should do. If you don't like it: Move to Haïti, and see for yourself.

Government exists to stop ME from hurting MYSELF? I can't even tell if you're serious.

[Zogarth]

Government exists to stop ME from hurting MYSELF? I can't even tell if you're serious.

It is a part of their job. A governments job is to serve and protect its citizens. Also if they require protection from themselves.

[Anodur]

I disagree with the premise that there is no absolute morality. And harm can not mean many different things. We can fool ourselves into believing that it can (as you demonstrated when you mentioned masturbation), but that does not make morality relative. A relative morality is not so much a morality as it is a cultural dogma, and the two are not the same.

Government is not a substitute for parents, but it's not just a parent's job to protect their children. It's everybody's job to protect everybody (which makes it the government's job because of democracy), but it's not the government's job to raise children (which is the parent's job).

I believe that a government should treat acting as any other profession. A straight-line law enforcement. In this particular case, the government doesn't protect the children from themselves, but from their parents.

You say that governments should not concern themselves with individual's lives, and that the path is dangerous. The alternative, however, is equally dangerous because people are stupid. As history teaches us. Some of us are aware of our stupidity, but I dare say a majority of us is not. And I believe it is utterly naive to expect a positive outcome from allowing those unaware of their stupidity to persist in said stupidity. Because this harms not just themselves, but also their children and the rest of their environment.

In other words, most people are stupid and we need people like you to protect them because you know whats best for them.

How is it my job to protect other people? It's my job to protect myself, and not to harm others, but it's not my job to protect other people from harm.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a part of their job. A governments job is to serve and protect its citizens. Also if they require protection from themselves.

Okay. Sorry, I forgot this is 1984.

I thought John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle was close to the goalpost on a decent government.

But I guess criminalization of drugs, sodomy, adultery, pornography, alcohol, and tobacco is just a government functioning properly and morally.

WE'RE BIG BROTHER, AND WE PROTECT YOU FROM YOURSELF. BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. WE DO.

[Daerio]

WE'RE BIG BROTHER, AND WE PROTECT YOU FROM YOURSELF. BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEST FOR YOU. WE DO.

At least there's one person in this thread I can agree with.

I don't understand people who can't see what's wrong with "Government protecting people from themselves." Never has there been a viewpoint that was more contrary to freedom.

[Stir]

In other words, most people are stupid and we need people like you to protect them because you know whats best for them.

How is it my job to protect other people? It's my job to protect myself, and not to harm others, but it's not my job to protect other people from harm.

It's your job to protect others because you're part of a society. If it's not your job, then you're not part of that society. It's as simple as that.

And no; we don't need 'people like me to know what's good for them.' What we need is careful deliberation and thought, and democratic consensus based on that. It's the very foundation for democracy, for Pete's sake!

I don't understand people who can't see what's wrong with "Government protecting people from themselves." Never has there been a viewpoint that was more contrary to freedom.

Ironically, by limiting certain freedoms, one can safeguard the majority of freedoms. By removing such limits, we allow for corporate dictatorship, ownership of others, and a dysfunctional dystopian nightmare.

[Hraklea]

...it is illegal to get a job before youre 16 without working papers signed by your parents, and even then you cant get a job before 15 (14 in some states), so why is it legal for kids a young as infancy to work as an actor in movies, TV shows, and advertising? It makes no sense...

I'd ask the opposite: if kids can work as actors, why can't they work as everything else? I agree, it makes no sense.

What we need is careful deliberation and thought, and democratic consensus based on that. It's the very foundation for democracy, for Pete's sake!

There's was a time where "black people should be slave" was a democratic consensus...

The point is: some things are not supposed to be subject to democracy.

By removing such limits, we allow for corporate dictatorship, ownership of others...

We still have those things, so no, the current system doesn't solve the problem.

[Prokne]

I think it has more to do with the nature of the work than the distraction from childhood or school. When child labor laws were first implemented kids were working in factories and mines and other dangerous places and getting hurt, hurting their physical development and other similar things.

Kids that are in acting arent really exposed to any additional danger. They cant be stunt doubles or do them themselves. Also the work isnt very taxing and leaves plenty of time for learning even though they probably have to have tutors.

- - - Updated - - -

It is a part of their job. A governments job is to serve and protect its citizens. Also if they require protection from themselves.

IMO the only people that need protection from themselves are people who dont have the ability to make fully rational decisions such as children and the mentally ill. Everyone else should be free to make whatever decisions they want even if they end up hurting themselves. Unfortunately some/most governments dont follow this guideline.