Kids can work, just not in sweat shops. Do you own a sweat shop?

Kids in the 3rd world should be allowed to work as long as it doesn't interupt any kind of education they could be getting and they can go back home with there families everyday.

__________________
Collective? I'm sure thats easy when your not surrounded by a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing retards!!!

No it isn't! Not in the least! When have the Republicans ever claimed to be the party of the little man, the factory worker????

Clinton was just a liar of biblical proportions, but hey he was in the right party for it!

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

Really????

Where did I say that?

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

No, that was me in those two massive posts here Democrats V Repulicans = Pessimism v Optimism!!!

Hear what Milton Friedman has to say on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_l...of_Child_Labor

According to economist and capitalist Milton Friedman, children's participation in economic activity was commonplace prior to the Industrial Revolution as children performed labor on their farms or for their families. Friedman, the author of the phrase Miracle of Chile and educator of the economists at the University of Chicago, popularly referred to as the Chicago Boys, claimed that the Industrial Revolution saw a net decline in child labor, rather than an increase.[9] He claimed this to be supported both by economic theory, referred to by some journalists as Market fundamentalism, and empirical evidence.[10][11] According to Friedman's theory, before the Industrial Revolution virtually all children worked in agriculture. During the Industrial Revolution many of these children moved from farm work to factory work. Over time, as real wages rose, parents became able to afford to send their children to school instead of work and as a result child labor declined, both before and after legislation.

Yet Friedman's theory posited that the absence of child labor is a luxury that many poor states cannot yet afford, and that to prohibit it is to prevent the overall economic growth necessary to eventually relieve a society of the need for child labor. In poor societies he claimed that children will be put to work by their families by whatever means necessary. Moreover, in addition to possibly increasing family costs on a depleted family income, in the absence of a public school program, parents may have to forego potential labor time and income, to care for their children.[9]

However, the British historian and socialist E.P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class draws a qualitative distinction between child domestic work and participation in the wider (waged) labor-market.[6] Further, the usefulness of the experience of the industrial revolution in making predictions about current trends has been disputed. Economic historian Hugh Cunningham, author of Children and Childhood in Western Society Since 1500, notes that:

"Fifty years ago it might have been assumed that, just as child labor had declined in the developed world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, so it would also, in a trickle-down fashion, in the rest of the world. Its failure to do that, and its re-emergence in the developed world, raise questions about its role in any economy, whether national or global."[11]

Big Bill Haywood, a leading labor organizer and leader of the Western Federation of Miners and a founding member and leader of the Industrial Workers of the World famously claimed "the worst thief is he who steals the playtime of children!" [12]

According to Thomas DeGregori, an economics professor at the University of Houston, in an article published by the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank operating in Washington D.C., "it is clear that technological and economic change are vital ingredients in getting children out of the workplace and into schools. Then they can grow to become productive adults and live longer, healthier lives. However, in poor countries like Bangladesh, working children are essential for survival in many families, as they were in our own heritage until the late 19th century. So, while the struggle to end child labor is necessary, getting there often requires taking different routes -- and, sadly, there are many political obstacles."[13].

Austrian school economist Murray Rothbard also defended child labor, stating that British and American children of the pre- and post-Industrial Revolution went "voluntarily and gladly" to work in factories. [1]

__________________
.

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

--Murray Rothbard

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skinny. A liberal is just a libertarian who hasn't studied economics.

Is that it demonstrates the title so well! Look at all the negative downer BS being spewed by the Democrats here! When they post this stuff, they just drive my initial point home!

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

We were talking about the US, and our child labor laws. We're not quite the third world, yet.

Does anyone on this forum know the difference between "there" and their?" Jesus (*)(*)(*)(*)ing Christ!

You had a point? Ever?

Not as impressive as that one on your head, but yeah!

__________________
Not many people know this, but I'm really famous!

I completely disagree with this statement. I'd say the pessimistic party is the one who doesn't think an individual can live a free life (curbing civil liberties to fight the war on terror). A pessimistic party is one who thinks 19 thugs that killed 3000 people represent a failed state that requires regime change, when our own country has had the Oklahoma city bombing and other terrorist activities. Pessimism is advocating the Patriot Act, a piece of legislation with a grim and untrustworthy outlook on the future. Pessimism is promoting Democracy (because Democracies are PEACEFUL) through the BARREL OF A GUN rather than diplomacy.