Damn state governments being spineless and not allowing people under 21 into bars!

Meh don't be angry , they maybe can't go in to bars and drink , but at least they can buy a gun and rob the bars.

fyp

word

So your 'solution' for a child whose parents are working slave wage jobs in 3rd world countries is to make it illegal for them to make money and force them to become criminals or starve

Sick logic

Thank you. So they are drinking alcohol with left hand ilegally while holding a gun with right hand legally.

Why are statists so fascinated with the subject of child rape?

No, it's not.

I don't need specifics. YOU made the claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to show how this is "my" side.

Listen, things are COMPLICATED in the real world. Issues are not always simple black and white, binary, this or that. Sorry you can't handle even the tiny bit of nuance here.

The extra funny part is that this isn't even bk's "side". You and fly have just been making up this caricature of these positions, with each iteration getting further from reality but your confidence in the accuracy of the caricature growing because you two keep patting each other on the back.

thread completely replete with sarcasm, cannot filter.

But hey, at least there's no strawmanning going on ITT!

loaded word imo.

Supply and Demand

best question itt, prob the one that deserves an honest, non-snarky answer more than any other.

(deleted: read comp fail on my part)

When you have proponents of AC saying stuff like this:

In response to questions about child labor. And then you have people like BK coming in and making the case for why children SHOULD be allowed to enter into labor contracts, i.e. work because his six year old nephew makes better decisions than many 18 year olds (why else would he chose to compare him to people that are of the age of consent other than to imply that he thinks kids much younger than the age of 18 can enter into contracts?). And this all comes after razerback, or someone, pointed to Jerry Sandusky as an example of one of the numerous instances of the state failing miserably at something.

So when people start asking questions attempting to figure out how an AC society would be better at stopping child predators and the answers are wildly inconsistent with earlier statements or contradict espoused principles of their ideology, it's not a case of malicious caricature painting it's more like self-immolation.

Because it's 13 year old kids! They want to do things all the time, and they think a lot of choices are things that make the best sense for them. The problem is that children this young, by definition, DO have an inferior decision making ability. Yes, an arbitrary age limit won't always be correct, but there isn't a better widespread test available. It is in society's best interest to allow children an appropriate amount of time to grow and educate themselves about the crucial life decisions that will soon be in front of them before they are set free to make those decisions.

When you start turning 15-21, go have a cigarette. Drop out of school. Get a minimum wage job and stay there. Lose your wages on lottery tickets. Go to the bar and put the tab on your credit card. Make mistakes, learn the hard way.

I'm always uneasy to support government making decisions for people when those decisions have minimal impact on people other than the person making them. In this case, though, I look at it more as a restriction on the employer. And in this case, there are other people affected. There are victims (besides the children) of employment practices that not only in theory, but in practice, have led to children being taken advantage of because of a lack of experience and bargaining power. Think that "union janitor" that Newt wants to lay off.

Please explain how a 9-year-old Indian child forced into indentured servitude sewing soccer balls all day fits into anything like this equation. Keep in mind that adults would be glad to sew soccer balls, they just won't do it as cheaply and aren't as easy to intimidate and screw out of wages.

So thanks to lax enforcement of existing child labor laws in India, our suburban kids get their soccer balls cheaper, and some Indian kid gets valuable life experience and makes money for his family, when he could be stuck in boring old school. Everybody wins right?

It's fascinating to me how you people are always the first to pull out the "dropping bombs on brown people meme" against anyone who supports anything other than complete military isolationism. Yet apparently the almost universally accepted inherent right of every kid to have a childhood is a value that means nothing to you when it comes to the "brown people". Must be nice from your lofty perch over here in the lap of luxury to cast these aspersions about LIBERTY trumping all, even protecting children from exploitation.

In before failure of a weak state to do something strong states succeed at (prevent child labor) = "see state fails so obviously it shouldn't even try".

best example of state failure? Meh, probably not. But lets be honest here, the man leveraged his position at a state institution allegedly beknownst to the state administrators around him allegedly raped little boys for decades. Another arm of the state is allegedly notified of this and it takes 13 years while rape was allegedly continuing to occur before anything was done. And by done I mean some testimony was gathered and he was set free on unsecured, unmonitored bail.

Should the other nations of the world invade America for feeding our kids McDonalds?

guys, i'm pretty sure fly meant his questions to be sarcastic and rhetorical. i'm assuming (hoping) you were just skimming through this.

noone in here ever suggested that those kids should be forced to do anything. If he/his family has better alternative, awesome. If his family cant feed him unless he provides for his family, its better than starving, isnt it?

its fascinating to me how you guys keep coming up with ******ed arguments and avoiding real issues. Like my equivalent of your arguments would probably look like this:





dude, really, humans love children. No parents would force their kids to skip school and go to work unless they had no choice.

Notice how I dont even need to bring up "those laws would not enforce anything ever" argument here

The implication of your post was that an AC society would do a better job of preventing this abuse. No one is arguing that this wasn't a terrible situation just that the notion that these types of situations would be better handled or even less prevalent in a society whose main(only?) defense mechanisms against these types of abusers is shunning and vigilantism is absurd. Especially when you consider that this is a society whose proponents are stridently arguing for respect of individual differing ethical codes and making arguments that young children would have the capacity to enter into *some* types of contracts, BUT NOT CHILD PROSTITUTION CONTRACTS, although the details of how the types of contracts that children can and cannot enter into are a bit fuzzy beyond a good 'ole fashioned ass-kicking!

So having the options to either starve or work for 3 cents a month isn't "being forced"?

Also, why are any companies in America at all? I thought supply and demand would force them all to go hire children who would do our jobs at pennies on the dollar.

That would almost suggest that there exist companies that are willing to pay their employees decent amounts while also making good money for the higher-up muckity mucks. Perhaps forcing those who use child labor out of the market would be a good idea.

I guess it's easy for people in this thread to pretend we're talking about two different things. That makes it easy to feel morally justified. There is, of course, a world of difference between a child in America working at a restaurant busing dishes and a child in Honduras working 16 hour days in a sweatshop. Those who find child labor morally reprehensible are not talking about the former.

Locking for now. Lots of purging on the way

OK, I'm going to unlock this. If the people crying about certain people completely and deliberately misrepresenting their position for the purposes of trolling, I think they need to do a better job of presenting their position before I can buy their cries of misrepresentation. Let's start by answering these:

1. In an AC society, for what sorts of contracts is it justifiable for a DRO/pack of vigilantes/the family of one of the parties to intervene in using force on the grounds that the person entering into it is not capable of consent?

2. How does someone determine whether or not someone is capable of full, rational consent in an AC society? Is someone capable of rationally consenting to certain activities/contracts but not others, and if so, why?