3 ms·

the point is, by removing the "least bad" option of an 8 year old working a coal mine, we were forced to improve our labor practices overall. if kids don't hav

the point is, by removing the "least bad" option of an 8 year old working a coal mine, we were forced to improve our labor practices overall. if kids don't have a better option than working in a coal mine at 8, society needs to come up with that better option, rather than giving the kid/family the current "best".

pitaj 8y ago
But doing so will only force them into worse options for the time being. By restricting those options, you aren't magically progressing society into higher standards of living. If you want better options, create them. Then you won't need to forcefully restrict other options, people will voluntarily switch over.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  Citation needed.
kortilla 8y ago
Well banning them certainly would have led to many families being worse off in the short term (lost income) and coal prices increasing (reduced labor pool). The analysis needs to be compared against alternative policies that would have discouraged it through market pressure (e.g. free school for children with a free meal) rather than an outright ban. Don’t ban the undesirable thing, figure out why people are doing the undesirable thing in the first place and address that. Btw the children example is bad because there is an entirely separate argument about the child not being old enough to make decisions that completely muddies the point.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Btw the children example is bad because there is an entirely separate argument about the child not being old enough to make decisions that completely muddies the point. It used to be that kids were treated like little adults and were considered fully capable of decision making. Now it seems like a lot of people want adults to be treated like kids and protected (if you can call it that) from opportunities to make bad decisions.

3 ms·

the point is, by removing the "least bad" option of an 8 year old working a coal mine, we were forced to improve our labor practices overall. if kids don't hav

by arthur_pryor 8y ago

pitaj 8y ago
But doing so will only force them into worse options for the time being. By restricting those options, you aren't magically progressing society into higher standards of living. If you want better options, create them. Then you won't need to forcefully restrict other options, people will voluntarily switch over.
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  Citation needed.
kortilla 8y ago
Well banning them certainly would have led to many families being worse off in the short term (lost income) and coal prices increasing (reduced labor pool). The analysis needs to be compared against alternative policies that would have discouraged it through market pressure (e.g. free school for children with a free meal) rather than an outright ban. Don’t ban the undesirable thing, figure out why people are doing the undesirable thing in the first place and address that. Btw the children example is bad because there is an entirely separate argument about the child not being old enough to make decisions that completely muddies the point.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Btw the children example is bad because there is an entirely separate argument about the child not being old enough to make decisions that completely muddies the point. It used to be that kids were treated like little adults and were considered fully capable of decision making. Now it seems like a lot of people want adults to be treated like kids and protected (if you can call it that) from opportunities to make bad decisions.