Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
What the free-market view means in policy terms is no tariffs for business, no subsidies for farmers, and no racism written into law. Also, successful businessmen will not be subject to special taxes or the seizure of property.
In America this view of equality is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Much of America’s first century as a nation was devoted to ending slavery, extending voting rights, and securing property and inheritance rights for women–fulfilling the Founders’ goal of equal opportunity for all citizens.
Progressives and modern critics of equality of opportunity have launched two significant criticisms against the Founders’ view. First, that equality of opportunity is impossible to achieve. Second, to the extent that equality of opportunity has been tried, it has resulted in a gigantic inequality of outcomes. Equality of outcome, in the Progressive view, is desirable and can only be achieved by massive government intervention.
To some extent, of course, the Progressives have a valid point–equality of opportunity is, at an individual level (as opposed to an institutional level) hard to achieve. We are all born with different family advantages, with different abilities, and in different neighborhoods with varying levels of opportunity. As socialist playwright George Bernard Shaw said, “Give your son a fountain pen and a ream of paper and tell him that he now has an equal opportunity with me of writing plays and see what he says to you.”
What the Progressives miss is that their cure is worse than the illness. When government, for example, tries to correct imbalances in family, ability, and neighborhood, government intervention produces other inequalities that maybe worse than the original ones.
It’s a fundamental difference in outlook on life. The conservative says “If one guy managed to do it anywhere, then that means anyone can aspire toward it, and that applies everywhere.” The liberal says “If one guy fails at it somewhere, then nobody else can hope to do it anywhere…or, should be stopped from trying. And everywhere.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Do you think the government has an interest when people are too poor to send their children to school? Or even so poor children have to work long hours under grueling and dangerous conditions?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2014 @ 09:06http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
That question is not connected to equality.
But this one is:
Assuming the Government has an interest when some people are that poor, should it consider the matter satisfactorily closed when everyone is equally poor?
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2014 @ 10:39mkfreeberg: That question is not connected to equality.
Of course it is. A twelve-year-old kid who starts working fourteen hour days in the mines has much less opportunity that a kid who can afford to go to school until they are grown.
mkfreeberg: Assuming the Government has an interest when some people are that poor, should it consider the matter satisfactorily closed when everyone is equally poor?
No.
- Zachriel | 01/30/2014 @ 11:12That’s a contradiction. If everyone is equally poor, then there are no “kid[s] who can afford to go to school until they are grown.”
So if the problem is poverty, the President should talk up & take some steps to alleviate poverty. We’re already fifty years into using government action to do that directly, and it has not been a success, so the logical next step is to get the government out of the way.
If the problem is equality, then the President should be honest and say He’s distressed that everyone isn’t equally impoverished and miserable, and be up-front with His plans to make everyone equally impoverished and miserable. Then the rest of us can vote on whether we want to have our government making sure all kids “have to work long hours under grueling and dangerous conditions”…equally.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2014 @ 18:34mkfreeberg: That’s a contradiction. If everyone is equally poor, then there are no “kid[s] who can afford to go to school until they are grown.”
Huh. Do you even understand the meaning of contradiction? Not sure how advocating the end of child labor means advocating everyone being equally poor.
mkfreeberg: So if the problem is poverty, the President should talk up & take some steps to alleviate poverty.
Sure. So you agree the government has a role to play. That’s a start.
mkfreeberg: If the problem is equality, then the President should be honest and say He’s distressed that everyone isn’t equally impoverished and miserable, and be up-front with His plans to make everyone equally impoverished and miserable.
Efforts to create equality of opportunity for children and general prosperity are not antithetical. For instance, the U.S. outlawed child labor and instituted universal childhood education, and has prospered. The question is whether you think this was a valid role for government? Do you think the government has a valid interest when people are too poor to send their children to school? Or even so poor children have to work long hours under grueling and dangerous conditions?
- Zachriel | 01/30/2014 @ 19:09http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
If A is impoverished, which y’all identify as a problem, and B is prosperous, there is inequality as well as poverty.
If A and B are both impoverished, the issue with inequality is fully addressed but the poverty remains. Y’all have gone on record as saying that is not satisfactory. Thus it is proven: Poverty is the issue. Inequality is irrelevant.
So, yes. Contradiction. Is the equality/inequality thing relevant? Seems some of y’all say yes, some of y’all say no.
Incidentally, if we’re going to have freedom, inequality is a natural consequence of that. Some people just aren’t into the accumulation of material goods. And other people are.
- mkfreeberg | 01/30/2014 @ 19:28mkfreeberg: If A and B are both impoverished, the issue with inequality is fully addressed but the poverty remains. Y’all have gone on record as saying that is not satisfactory. Thus it is proven: Poverty is the issue. Inequality is irrelevant.
You indicated in your original post that you supported equality of opportunity. If some children are forced to work in the mines by circumstances, and some children get to stay in school, that is inequality of opportunity. You never answered the question. Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?
mkfreeberg: if we’re going to have freedom, inequality is a natural consequence of that. Some people just aren’t into the accumulation of material goods. And other people are.
Sure. What about these people?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2014 @ 08:12http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
What’s the German word for the special kind of disappointment you get when you click on blog comments hoping to find an interesting, intelligent discussion, but realize it’s only another infestation of the same autistic cut-n-paste idiots who still haven’t figured out how to embed a fucking hyperlink?
I naturally assume the Germans have a word for this.
- Severian | 01/31/2014 @ 08:15How about “Tintenfischkopierenundeinfügenenttäuschung”? I took “cuttlefish copy and paste disappointment” and mashed it into a compound word so typical of German.
- Captain Midnight | 01/31/2014 @ 11:59That works for me!
Ahhh, the Germans… ya just can’t stay mad at ’em.
- Severian | 01/31/2014 @ 13:20What about these people?
They sure look dirty. Beyond that, well, a lazy-picture-embed is not an argument. Is there some story behind this that has to do with tariffs for business, subsidies for farmers, or racism written into law?
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2014 @ 14:14mkfreeberg: They sure look dirty.
They’re children working in coal mines in the U.S.
mkfreeberg: Beyond that, well, a lazy-picture-embed is not an argument.
It was a question. Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2014 @ 15:48Z: Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?
I’d say that’s a valid question. You can answer it by pointing out the specific power(s) granted unto Congress in the Constitution that gives them a role in either endeavor.
- Captain Midnight | 01/31/2014 @ 16:29Captain Midnight: I’d say that’s a valid question. You can answer it by pointing out the specific power(s) granted unto Congress in the Constitution that gives them a role in either endeavor.
Different countries have different constitutions, but nearly all modern countries, including the U.S., regulate child labor. In addition, states within the U.S. have their own constitutions, so the question remains as to whether the government has a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?
- Zachriel | 01/31/2014 @ 18:16Where did we get the idea that, if someone has to do work, one has no opportunities? There’s a gap there that needs bridging.
Can we all agree that it’s possible for people to have opportunities, even though they have work they need to be getting done? In fact, Edison actually connected those things together, and his statement strikes a chord with most Americans who have been acquainted with both opportunity and work; they, too, see the connection.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2014 @ 19:00Short answer, though, I would say no. Government does not have a role to play in making sure nobody ever has to do work. If there’s a state constitution somewhere that says that’s what the proper role is, then that would be wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 01/31/2014 @ 19:01mkfreeberg: Where did we get the idea that, if someone has to do work, one has no opportunities?
We didn’t say “no opportunities” but “less opportunity”. A twelve-year-old kid who works fourteen hour days in the mines has less opportunity that a kid who can afford to go to school until they are grown.
Zachriel: Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?
mkfreeberg: Short answer, though, I would say no.
No laws against child labor or providing for universal education. Most people in most countries think that their prosperity depends on an educated workforce, and that government has a role to play. Thank you for answering. That’s all we wanted to know.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 07:31We didn’t say “no opportunities” but “less opportunity”.
A lot of people have made dazzling successes out of less-opportunity.
A twelve-year-old kid who works fourteen hour days in the mines has less opportunity that a kid who can afford to go to school until they are grown.
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
Most people in most countries think that their prosperity depends on an educated workforce, and that government has a role to play.
Even in America, the government has a role to play in feeding people, educating people and sustaining their standard of living. And yet the more it gets involved, the more people get fat, dumb & poor; more and more people see a connection. So that “most people” thing is something that would need to be re-evaluated from time to time.
Like the high school nerd says, “I was willing to look the other way when you married that guy, bought a house with him, and then had a kid, and then another and then another…but now that you’re pregnant AGAIN I’m starting to think you don’t take this relationship seriously!”
That’s all we wanted to know.
In order to what?
Y’all seem to be conflating three things into one here.
– Equality;
– Opportunity;
– No more work to be done, everything worth doing has been done already.
Fact is, all three of those are different things. In fact, if we’ve somehow come to the agreement that popular opinion counts for something, there is a broad segment of the population that regards the last two of the three as mutually-exclusive from one another. Particularly among those who are experienced and wise.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 09:14Z: Different countries have different constitutions…
This is such an amazing fact! I gotta write this down so I can ponder it fully. *scribble* Well, with one new thing learned, I’d say today is starting off well.
No quite sure why you diverge of into a discussion about nations since the second and third paragraph from Morgan’s post makes this abundantly clear that the scope is the U.S. of A.
Z: In addition, states within the U.S. have their own constitutions…
Two new bits of knowledge today! Will wonders never cease?!?
Z: but nearly all modern countries, including the U.S., regulate child labor.
I’m trying to put my finger on the comment here that calls this bit o’ knowledge into dispute.
Z: so the question remains as to whether the government has a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?
The question remains because you have spent 50 words to bring up facts irrelevant to the discussion and performed your typical repeat. The question you pose is not whether governments at any level make child labor and education laws but whether “government has a role” in these areas. I put two words into italics to call your attention to them because they are different. Hint: you ask a question about one of the words, but bring up examples of the other. Focus!
Let me make the steps for answering your question abundantly clear for you:
Click this link to bring up Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Read the powers granted to Congress in Section 8.
Think about the powers granted to Congress in Section 8.
Identify the power(s) in Section 8 that grants Congress a role in ending childhood labor and child education.
Return here and quote the power(s) in Section 8 that answers your question about the role of government in ending childhood labor and child education.
I have every confidence that you are capable of doing this. Make me proud!
- Captain Midnight | 02/01/2014 @ 09:27And it looks like the ol and li tags aren’t allowed. So here are the steps manually numbered:
1) Click this link to bring up Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
- Captain Midnight | 02/01/2014 @ 09:312) Read the powers granted to Congress in Section 8.
3) Think about the powers granted to Congress in Section 8.
4) Identify the power(s) in Section 8 that grants Congress a role in ending childhood labor and child education.
5) Return here and quote the power(s) in Section 8 that answers your question about the role of government in ending childhood labor and child education.
Captain Midnight: Return here and quote the power(s) in Section 8 that answers your question about the role of government in ending childhood labor and child education.
The U.S. is not the only government in the world. It’s not even the only government in the U.S.
Section 8 indicates there are “other powers” not specifically mentioned. The Supreme Court has upheld laws regulating child labor.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 10:14A good argument can be supported by way of specifics, not merely by way of generalities.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 10:17Captain Midnight: No quite sure why you diverge of into a discussion about nations since the second and third paragraph from Morgan’s post makes this abundantly clear that the scope is the U.S. of A.
Our question was universal.
Captain Midnight: The question you pose is not whether governments at any level make child labor and education laws but whether “government has a role” in these areas.
Yes, that’s right. That’s our question. You seem to be saying the government has no such role, pointing to the legislative powers in the U.S. Constitution.
mkfreeberg: In order to what?
To help clarify your position. You don’t think there should be laws against child labor.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 10:21So y’all don’t think kids should be allowed to work. Good to know.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 13:24mkfreeberg: So y’all don’t think kids should be allowed to work.
Actually, we didn’t state a position, but now that you bring it up, our position is that children should be limited in their work insofar as it doesn’t interfere with their education.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 13:31And that’s a static limit? Or should it creep with the passage of time? Until the precious snowflakes can’t be put to work doing anything at all, and their work ethic has been injured so badly that their education is no longer relevant…
I think most people would agree, when there’s more chaos in the presence of a law than there would be in the law’s absence, this would be counterproductive.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 13:37mkfreeberg: And that’s a static limit?
No. One has to apply reason. Younger children shouldn’t work. Older children should be given some work experience, but again, it should be limited to avoid exploitation, and to avoid interfering with education.
mkfreeberg: I think most people would agree, when there’s more chaos in the presence of a law than there would be in the law’s absence, this would be counterproductive.
Pretty sure if you had a vote, people would vote overwhelming that government should limit child labor.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 13:42http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
Yeah, let’s hold a vote.
Among parents. Of children ages 11-17.
Somewhere around Labor Day, just before or just after.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 13:46There should be a limit to woemen driving. Not a static limit. One has to apply reason. Younger woemen shouldn’t drive. Older woemen should be given some driving experience, but again, it should be limited to avoid exploitation, and to avoid interfering with their cooking my dinner.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 13:47mkfreeberg: Among parents. Of children ages 11-17.
You’re saying 11 year-olds working twelve hour days with no schooling should be legal, that government shouldn’t interfere.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
Let us know how go your political efforts to repeal child labor laws.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 13:54@Captain Midnight:
good luck trying to educate them on reading comprehension, buddy. Click here, if you dare, and watch them try — and fail spectacularly — to parse the meaning of a single sentence, over the course of about 30 posts.
At first it’s pretty funny, but then it gets sad, and then it just turns gruesome.
- Severian | 02/01/2014 @ 13:56A little hard work doesn’t hurt anybody.
We could contrast those stories, with the many coming out right now that more closely resemble this precious snowflake…
We live in a universe of cause-and-effect, not a universe of magical rituals or incantations. Getting something that’s merely called an “education” isn’t good enough. You have to learn a useful skill, along with a work ethic. Then, you can have opportunity.
But I think now people are generally waking up to the obvious wisdom that it isn’t government’s job to provide that.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 14:03mkfreeberg: A little hard work doesn’t hurt anybody.
A lot of hard work for young children can prevent them from getting an education, including basic literacy.
mkfreeberg: We could contrast those stories, with the many coming out right now that more closely resemble this precious snowflake…
She’s not a child. We were discussing laws on child labor. You said you were for allowing children to work without restriction.
mkfreeberg: Getting something that’s merely called an “education” isn’t good enough.
No, but most people consider a basic education to be essential, for instance, the ability to read and write.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 14:09A lot of hard work for young children can prevent them from getting an education, including basic literacy.
A lot of things called “education” can prevent young children from getting an education, including basic literacy.
She’s not a child. We were discussing laws on child labor. You said you were for allowing children to work without restriction.
I didn’t say without restriction. Having seen the effect of child labor laws, in our more recent times, I have reached the common-sense conclusion that this is not a proper role for government to play. They are not to be trusted with the power. I guess that makes me sound kinda like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or any one of a number of other crazy right-wing extremists.
And while the snowflake is not a child, her delusions about “education” likely stem from childhood, and in any case she’s a tragic example of how some things called “education” aren’t really educational and can lead to some terrible financial consequences for some individuals. And their children.
No, but most people consider a basic education to be essential, for instance, the ability to read and write.
Like, yeah! ZOMG! LOLZ!
News flash: This country has had, and continues to have, a lot of people working some pretty long-ass days who know how to read and write. And it’s got quite a few people who don’t & can’t do either one of those things. The relationship between working and learning is not a mutually-exclusive one.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 14:14mkfreeberg: Having seen the effect of child labor laws, in our more recent times, I have reached the common-sense conclusion that this is not a proper role for government to play.
Sure. We understand your position. You are against any laws restricting child labor. Thank you for answering.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2014 @ 14:35…in the same way that y’all will not accept any limits to the laws, that are supposed to be doing this restriction, including sensible safeguards against their potential abuse.
Y’all have rejected the notion that the standard defining this exploitative labor should be in any way static; meanwhile, the graphic y’all have repeatedly linked is from — 102 years ago. So yeah, I can see how that is perfectly relevant to a newer law effectively requiring a thirteen-year-old to remain unemployed, limbering up his thumbs on a video game console during every spare minute, while his parents wonder what they’re going to do now that they’ve lost a health care plan that was working fine for them.
We’ll just pretend 102 years ago == now. Problem solved.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2014 @ 15:47mkfreeberg: …in the same way that y’all will not accept any limits to the laws, that are supposed to be doing this restriction, including sensible safeguards against their potential abuse.
Not sure where you got that idea. We strongly support constitutional government and a balance of powers.
mkfreeberg: the graphic y’all have repeatedly linked is from — 102 years ago.
Yes, your original blog concerned “America’s first century”. Our question concerned progressive changes occurring after that.
mkfreeberg: We’ll just pretend 102 years ago == now.
So are you reconsidering your position about early twentieth-century laws regulating child labor then?
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 06:57Not sure where you got that idea. We strongly support constitutional government and a balance of powers.
How interesting. How do you reconcile that with —
mkfreeberg: And that’s a static limit?
No. One has to apply reason.
? …Who is to apply this “reason”? And how?
Our question concerned progressive changes occurring after that.
“Progressive changes” — as in — kids should not do work, therefore should not learn any kind of work ethic, instead should rely on state programs for their material wants and needs.
So are you reconsidering your position about early twentieth-century laws regulating child labor then?
I’m calling out that your argument relies on a presumption that different things are the same, and is therefore erroneous.
Are y’all trying to say that if we repealed the child labor laws in 2014, we’d have kids skipping school to sweat in the coal mines, like in your picture taken from 1912?
Here, let’s just grant you that 102 is equal to 0 and y’all’s argument might make some sense. Let’s walk through it. It’s…2014 or 1912, doesn’t matter which one because we’re warping reality to fit what y’all are trying to say. We have no child labor laws. I’m eleven years old, my family is impoverished, my parents are both sick and we’re all about to starve to death, the only thing stopping that from happening is that I got a job in a coal mine. I have no opportunities, since I have to skip school to work in that mine.
Here come the progressive with a new child labor law. I’m not allowed to work in the mine to support my family.
We all starve to death. The end.
So y’all’s argument is…this is exactly the same as the minimum-wage thing, I guess. “Opportunity” is to be re-defined as the elimination of opportunity. Progressive have been closing off options, while plying us with rhetoric about how they’re opening up new ones.
Me and my family starve. But, we never really counted for much in the first place, so that’s okay. Just like unborn babies…
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 08:30mkfreeberg: ? …Who is to apply this “reason”? And how?
In the U.S., they have regular elections, a legislature, a presidency, and an independent judiciary.
mkfreeberg: “Progressive changes” — as in — kids should not do work, therefore should not learn any kind of work ethic, instead should rely on state programs for their material wants and needs.
That is not our position, as we have stated above. Younger children shouldn’t work. Older children should be given some work experience, but again, it should be limited to avoid exploitation, and to avoid interfering with education.
mkfreeberg: Are y’all trying to say that if we repealed the child labor laws in 2014, we’d have kids skipping school to sweat in the coal mines, like in your picture taken from 1912?
No. We’re saying that positive progressive changes didn’t stop in first century in America. We brought up regulation of child labor as an important example, one that most people can understand.
mkfreeberg: We have no child labor laws. I’m eleven years old, my family is impoverished, my parents are both sick and we’re all about to starve to death, the only thing stopping that from happening is that I got a job in a coal mine.
Yes, that’s a valid counterargument. Many countries are making this transition now. They’re too poor to educate their children, but they will remain poor as long as their children remain uneducated. Society can provide the minimal support necessary so that children have the space to grow during the transition. It’s an important aspect of industrialization. Nearly all countries are making huge efforts to educate their children, because that has been shown to be a successful model of development.
By the way, most countries make allowances for children working in agriculture.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 08:43In the U.S., they have regular elections, a legislature, a presidency, and an independent judiciary.
And so the results we have illustrate the eventual result of these laws which y’all support, and to which I’m opposed? The unhappy woman in the picture?
Detroit?
That is not our position, as we have stated above. Younger children shouldn’t work. Older children should be given some work experience, but again, it should be limited to avoid exploitation, and to avoid interfering with education.
How is work thought-of as mutually exclusive from education?
Most of the things I’ve learned that have really helped me, I learned from doing some kind of work. This observation is not rare among people who have done actual work.
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 08:49mkfreeberg: And so the results we have illustrate the eventual result of these laws which y’all support, and to which I’m opposed?
That wasn’t the question you raised. You asked about how to apply reason. While democracy is hardly a perfect system, it does tend to balance opposing priorities.
mkfreeberg: How is work thought-of as mutually exclusive from education?
Older children should have some work experience. The question whether you think this should be legal:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
You have answered in the affirmative.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 08:56That wasn’t the question you raised.
That’s okay. Y’all raise new questions…others can raise new questions…
The question whether you think this should be legal:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
Thought we were done with that. Still pretending this is 1912?
Y’all already admitted that, with the child labor laws repealed, we wouldn’t necessarily be going back to that. So it seems we both agree that, contrary to the inquiry y’all just made, that is not “the question.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 09:04mkfreeberg: Thought we were done with that.
We are. You don’t think government should ever regulate child labor.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 09:32You have already conceded that we would not have a re-creation of the situation y’all show in that picture y’all keep linking, if the child labor laws were to be repealed today.
Given that, can y’all come up with one single benefit to having the government issue these proclamations to total strangers, about how much or how little they are to work their own children, and/or juvenile associates? Just one? Besides putting elites in charge of the intimate details of the lives of the commoners. Or is that the point?
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 10:19mkfreeberg: You have already conceded that we would not have a re-creation of the situation y’all show in that picture y’all keep linking, if the child labor laws were to be repealed today.
No, that’s not quite what we said, but clearly the situation today is different. That doesn’t mean there couldn’t still be abuses. But more to the topic, the original post concerned America’s first century of reform, and we brought up a reform from America’s second century.
mkfreeberg: Given that, can y’all come up with one single benefit to having the government issue these proclamations to total strangers, about how much or how little they are to work their own children, and/or juvenile associates?
We already did. We pointed to historical cases of child labor that were clearly detrimental. Your position is that the government should never regulate child labor, no matter the situation, no matter the level of abuse. That’s all we wanted to clarify.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 10:24No, that’s not quite what we said…
Then, I’m not quite sure what I’m looking at here. Y’all keep re-linking the picture of coal miners from 1912 and it’s very clear you’re calling me out for my approval of that situation, since I don’t approve of the micromanaging of today’s bureaucrats and the effective requirement that children today should be unemployed, and therefore nudged toward the welfare case lifestyle. Y’all say “clearly the situation today is different” and y’all emphatically reject the conservative notion that the boundary between right and wrong should be a generally static demarcation.
That would seem to falsify, or at the very least fail to prove, that someone opposed to child labor laws must necessarily approve of abusive and exploitative child labor.
It seems y’all are not only very bad at reading comprehension, but at logic as well.
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 11:21Z: The U.S. is not the only government in the world. It’s not even the only government in the U.S.
I’ll mark those down as yet two more bits of information, while interesting, aren’t germane. The article and my request have both been clearly focused.
Z: Section 8 indicates there are “other powers” not specifically mentioned.
*applause* An answer! And I only had to post the request three times. I’m guessing Severian’s helpful hints have been paying off. I’m proud of your progress!
So let’s look at this answer of “other powers” of yours. Here’s the full part you are quoted from:
You vaguely assert that Section 8 must apply to child labor laws and education because “other powers” are “not specifically mentioned.” Nice try, but no. Reading comprehension really isn’t your strong suit, is it? The bit right after “other powers” does the describing of where the “other powers” come from: “vested by this Constitution”. So you should be able to cite Article and Section where they are vested, right? [Hint: this is the point where you a) cite the part of the Constitution that grants the government a role in child labor laws and education, b) explain that you can’t find it, or c) indicate that you have no desire to find an answer to your question about the role of government in this subject.]
Z: Our question was universal.
Which is why the Dogh of Epsilon Eridani IV have long has rules prohibiting the pouchlings from working in the bIQ factories. The ghotI’ gets into their tentacles and stunts growth, dontchaknow. But how about we takes some baby steps and focus on the U.S. government for now. Mmmkay? We can discuss the universal application of child labor later if you like.
Z: You seem to be saying the government has no such role, pointing to the legislative powers in the U.S. Constitution.
That’s your assumption. And as Mitch Henessey explained, when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of “u” and “umption”.
Hey! You know what would work really well right now? How about a link to a bunch of dirty urchins? I’m sure that would clear up everything in a way that the first six didn’t.
- Captain Midnight | 02/02/2014 @ 11:24Severian: At first it’s pretty funny, but then it gets sad, and then it just turns gruesome.
That sums it up pretty well. That’s why I was so proud that Z was able to accomplish an on-topic response this time after just three posts by me. I’m sure he could crank that down to just one post if he works hard at it.
- Captain Midnight | 02/02/2014 @ 11:28mkfreeberg: Y’all keep re-linking the picture of coal miners from 1912 and it’s very clear you’re calling me out for my approval of that situation
Not at all. While you didn’t express disapproval, it’s reasonable to assume that you would consider the situation less than optimal. Your position is that government is an ineffective tool at regulating child labor, and furthermore, that uninhibited government can be dangerous. While we agree with the latter, we disagree with the former. Reasonable regulation can be consistent with limited, democratic governance.
mkfreeberg: y’all emphatically reject the conservative notion that the boundary between right and wrong should be a generally static demarcation.
That is not our position. The “static demarcation” concerned limiting child labor in favor of education. This demarcation may change depending on age and circumstance. Work is an important part of education.
mkfreeberg: That would seem to falsify, or at the very least fail to prove, that someone opposed to child labor laws must necessarily approve of abusive and exploitative child labor.
We didn’t say that. To reiterate, there are several arguments against child labor laws; the right of contract (which most people consider limited with children), the ineffectiveness of government at regulating (most people consider reasonable regulation of child labor can be effective), and the danger of uninhibited government (which is a real danger, but not an absolute), it’s unconstitutional (the Supreme Court has upheld child labor laws).
Captain Midnight: And I only had to post the request three times.
Your first comment was off-topic. Your second comment we answered by pointing out that the constitution doesn’t answer the question as to whether you think it is a proper role for government. Nor does support for constitutional government imply agreeing with every provision.
Captain Midnight: So you should be able to cite Article and Section where they are vested, right?
The Commerce Clause. See United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 11:41Reasonable regulation can be consistent with limited, democratic governance.
And Detroit shows how well this works?
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 11:46mkfreeberg: And Detroit shows how well this works?
You don’t think that the collapse of the American auto industry had some impact on Detroit? In any case, there are ample examples of good and bad governance. In any case, you made your position clear. You are against child labor laws regardless of age or circumstance.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 12:27You don’t think that the collapse of the American auto industry had some impact on Detroit?
It isn’t just Detroit. There are ample examples of education, or rather bizarre rituals laboring under the caption of “education,” failing to improve the lives of people who practice those things. Just as there are ample examples of people starting out in humble circumstances many progressives might consider to be exploitative and/or abusive, making their own lives much better later on, along with the lives of many others.
Now many of these magnates, such as Cornelius Vanderbilt for example, became symbols of loathed “robber barons” from which our progressive betters were going to rescue us, as they’ve made it clear generation after generation that wherever someone relies on his own skills to achieve prosperity, American liberalism identifies an unsolved problem. This all suggests rather strongly that to progressives, the real issue is not a childhood lacking in opportunities, but an adult livelihood that continues to enjoy too many of them.
So what do these progressive policies get us? More Detroits? Or more Detroits, with accompanying excuses? Neither vision represents the hopes I have for my own future. I’m selfish that way.
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 12:37mkfreeberg: There are ample examples of education, or rather bizarre rituals laboring under the caption of “education,” failing to improve the lives of people who practice those things.
It’s always easy to find examples of failure, but overall, countries that have worked towards universal literacy and higher levels of education have generally prospered.
As we said, our only question was whether the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education? Your answer is no. That’s all we wanted to know, and we appreciate your answer.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 15:26It’s always easy to find examples of failure, but overall, countries that have worked towards universal literacy and higher levels of education have generally prospered.
Ah. So we have a general statement saying one thing, and a specific observation in the opposite direction.
Which one should we believe?
I suppose that comes down to: Do we gather the data, and follow it wherever it leads us, or do we form the narrative and then reject any data that would fail to support the chosen narrative. It’s a conflict between the scientific process and the faith-based process.
Meanwhile…why did the car industry fail Detroit? Would that have been because of ++gigglesnort++ Republican, conservative, right-wing policies?
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 16:25mkfreeberg: So we have a general statement saying one thing, and a specific observation in the opposite direction.
Democracy has been very successful overall in the U.S. and most of Western Europe, so much so that most other countries are moving towards democratic governance.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 16:43In any case, you made your position clear. Detroit represents a desirable outcome. Progressive policies lead to all of America looking the way Detroit looks today, and that would be a good thing.
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 16:55mkfreeberg: In any case, you made your position clear. Detroit represents a desirable outcome.
It would behoove you to not misrepresent the position of others. Detroit is in a very poor position, some of which is due to circumstance, some due to poor decision-making. Nonetheless, democratic governance has been an effective form of government. In particular, the U.S. prospered in the twentieth-century. The American century was a progressive century.
- Zachriel | 02/02/2014 @ 20:33It would behoove you to not misrepresent the position of others.
Ha! Y’all must not have noticed, but “In any case, you made your position clear” was mockery of a phrase y’all have used several times in this thread — to misrepresent my position. Sauce for the goose not for the gander?
Detroit is in a very poor position, some of which is due to circumstance, some due to poor decision-making. Nonetheless, democratic governance has been an effective form of government.
I’m not faulting “democratic governance,” I’m faulting liberalism. For its bad results, and for its failure to own the consequences of its poor decision-making. The operation was a complete success. The patient died.
“You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing.”
Well, now we know. Child labor doesn’t deprive children of opportunity, lack of education doesn’t deprive children of opportunity, quite as completely or devastatingly as growing up in a region monopolized by left-wing public policies. And, nobody should notice. Procedure versus outcome.
- mkfreeberg | 02/02/2014 @ 21:02mkfreeberg: to misrepresent my position.
We believe we have represented your position correctly. You are against child labor laws because you believe government is an ineffective tool at regulating child labor, and furthermore, that uninhibited government can be dangerous. While we agree with the latter, we disagree with the former. Reasonable regulation can be consistent with limited, democratic governance.
mkfreeberg: I’m faulting liberalism.
The twentieth century was a period of progressive change in the U.S., with universal suffrage, the defeat of fascism, Social Security, 40-hour workweek, the end of segregation, work safety rules, overcoming communism, and environmental protection. It was a period of unparalleled American prosperity, called the American century.
But you’ve made your position clear; this should be legal:
- Zachriel | 02/03/2014 @ 06:06http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
It’s fascinating y’all think I’m going over the line and misstating y’all’s position, when I merely look at a real-world consequence of y’all’s public-policy ideas after they have been given a fair try; but at the same time, it’s okay to say “this should be legal” to characterize my position, even after y’all have conceded that “this” would not come about today, even if the child labor laws were repealed.
What other double-standards are necessary to make y’all’s ideas look like good ones?
Hey here’s a thought. How about, instead of making the paramount concern one of winning-arguments, knowing that y’all can’t lose when y’all see y’all’selves as the final arbiters of y’all’s performance…and instead, think about the standard of living of the poor people who are supposed to be helped by these laws that aren’t working? Maybe, just maybe, if liberals really did care about poor people just a fraction as much as they cared about looking better than someone else, Detroit wouldn’t be the way it is. Or does that even matter?
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 06:15mkfreeberg: it’s okay to say “this should be legal” to characterize my position, even after y’all have conceded that “this” would not come about today, even if the child labor laws were repealed.
Per the original post, we were comparing the first and second century of America’s history. You seem to be suggesting that child labor laws were once necessary, but are no longer necessary. If so, this supports our point that the polemic original post improperly excluded the progressive reforms of America’s second century.
- Zachriel | 02/03/2014 @ 06:23What the Progressives miss is that their cure is worse than the illness. When government, for example, tries to correct imbalances in family, ability, and neighborhood, government intervention produces other inequalities that maybe worse than the original ones.
That looks like an observation that is intended to be timeless, to me. How does it improperly exclude progressive reforms of America’s second century?
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 06:42mkfreeberg: That looks like an observation that is intended to be timeless, to me.
Very well then. You’ve made your position clear; this should be legal:
- Zachriel | 02/03/2014 @ 06:45http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
Notably, y’all didn’t answer the question.
What is improper about the statement?
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 07:10mkfreeberg: What is improper about the statement?
Um, we retracted that characterization of your views, saying “Very well then.”
Your position against child labor laws doesn’t depend on situation or circumstance. You’ve made your position clear; this should be legal:
- Zachriel | 02/03/2014 @ 07:12http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
Um, we retracted that characterization of your views, saying “Very well then.”
Oh okay, I missed that.
Is there someone somewhere who thinks it should be illegal to be dirty and grinning?
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 07:18Or…taking advantage of one of very, very few opportunities to feed one’s family. Is it really y’all’s position that if a job might involve something The People might not like, that the job should be outlawed and the employee who might otherwise be an employee, should be unemployed?
The Detroit-connection becomes clearer and clearer. Thanks for illustrating the mindset that created that tragic, tragic situation. Yes, I would rather be one of the boys in the picture, than a boy living in the jungle of Detroit. I’m probably not the only one. We might even consider the possibility that the coal mining kids are more literate, than your average Detroit schoolchild…after $12k spent on public schooling per pupil.
Thus is the folly of deciding such important things by way of emotion, at the expense of reason.
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 08:09mkfreeberg: Is it really y’all’s position that if a job might involve something The People might not like, that the job should be outlawed and the employee who might otherwise be an employee, should be unemployed?
As we already stated, child labor should be regulated. Younger children certainly shouldn’t work twelve-hour days, six days a week, in coal mines, but should be allowed to continue their education. Older children should have work experience, but with rules in place to make sure it helps with their development, but doesn’t hinder it.
- Zachriel | 02/03/2014 @ 08:15I see the Zachriel have one of those movies playing in their heads again — Morgan, you’re supposed to say “yes, I love child labor! Bwahahahahaha!” and twirl your mustache while pulling your cape up over your mouth. And they’ll keep cutting and pasting their little .jpg until you do, because in their pathetic fantasyland, that counts as an argument.
(Free protip, Spergs: The whole pictures-as-arguments thing works so much better like this. I know reading comprehension ain’t really y’all’s thing, but even you idiots should be able to grasp a simple tutorial.)
- Severian | 02/03/2014 @ 09:43Captain Midnight: And I only had to post the request three times.
Z: Your first comment was off-topic. Your second comment we answered by pointing out that the constitution doesn’t answer the question as to whether you think it is a proper role for government. Nor does support for constitutional government imply agreeing with every provision.
*sigh* And here I had assumed you had the ability to count. Counting is as easy as 1, 2, 3.
Your first response to mine was to bring in other nations and the states as having constitutions. While true, that factoid doesn’t address the U.S. Constitution granting government the role in regulating child labor or education which was my point. Since the Constitution is what specifies the role of government, using it as source material for government’s role in some situation is critical.
Captain Midnight: So you should be able to cite Article and Section where they are vested, right?
Z: The Commerce Clause. See United States v. Darby Lumber Co.
Oh, very good! You have been able to cite a constitutional authority for the government “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. But the proper citation on that is “Article 1 Section 8” not some court case. The Commerce Clause has been used by Congress to give them regulatory authority over commerce between the states, commerce inside a state, and even not engaging in commerce at all, so it certainly covers labor laws, whether children or adults.
You have been successful, howbeit slowly, in identifying a role of government in crafting child labor laws. You should feel a sense of accomplishment for your deed. Good job, Z. Now in the realm of Good/Better/Best, it would have been Better to have identified the Commerce Clause without repeated pointings to Section 8. And Best would have been initially forming your question as a statement like “The Commerce Clause in the Constitution grants the federal government a role in legislating child labor laws.”
BTW, I notice that you have dropped the “other powers” angle. Is that because you couldn’t find justification outside of Section 8?
Now with the first half of your question answered, we can tackle the second half: Please cite the Article/Section of the Constitution that gives government the role in child education. I hope that this won’t take days and repeated promptings.
- Captain Midnight | 02/03/2014 @ 11:00FYI Morgan, I read this article today that seems to echo your point. Here’s a chunk that is apropos:
- Captain Midnight | 02/03/2014 @ 11:12Captain Midnight: And here I had assumed you had the ability to count.
Your first comment. The comments you labeled 2 and 3 were repetitious, contiguous, and only minutes apart.
Captain Midnight: While true, that factoid doesn’t address the U.S. Constitution granting government the role in regulating child labor or education which was my point.
Captain Midnight: it would have been Better to have identified the Commerce Clause without repeated pointings to Section 8.
Um, the Commerce Clause is a section 8 power.
- Zachriel | 02/03/2014 @ 18:09Z: Your first comment.
My first comment was addressed to Severian and wasn’t considered as part of my count. You did grasp that, right? Or did you have some specific reason why you feel the need to include that into the Constitution-centered comments I have addressed to you?
Z: The comments you labeled 2 and 3 were repetitious, contiguous, and only minutes apart.
True, true, and true. But they are separate posts, and when added to the first one, add up to three. You did grasp that, right?
Captain Midnight: it would have been Better to have identified the Commerce Clause without repeated pointings to Section 8.
Z: Um, the Commerce Clause is a section 8 power.
Yay! You have comprehended the blindingly obvious! The fact remains that you didn’t offer up the Commerce Clause as a justification for the government’s role in child labor laws until after I pointed you to Section 8. That you identified that clause was Good. Had you been able to mention it when I first asked for a constitutional justification would have been Better. And Best of all would have been citing that clause from the beginning. If you are having difficulty with this concept, here’s a helpful aid.
- Captain Midnight | 02/03/2014 @ 18:43As we already stated, child labor should be regulated. Younger children certainly shouldn’t work twelve-hour days, six days a week, in coal mines, but should be allowed to continue their education. Older children should have work experience, but with rules in place to make sure it helps with their development, but doesn’t hinder it.
And frogs should have wings, that way they wouldn’t have to bump their asses on the ground all the time.
But meanwhile, back here in reality…or rather, the reality of 1912. The case-study child working in the coal mine, must have been put in a situation in which that was necessary. Your “shoulds” might be exciting as they slip out of your mouth, but they’re not going to provide nourishment to anybody who needs to work in a coal mine to feed their family, or to send their healthy children into a coal mine to keep the family fed.
It’s really the exact same situation as minimum wage. And abortion. It’s easy to say “the pregnant woman’s lifestyle should be this” or “the job should be that”; to those who cannot pay attention to anything and can’t think a step or two ahead, it sounds like a law is being made that makes the pregnant woman freer, and raises the standard of the job. Or, shortens the boy’s workday so he can get his schoolwork done.
But laws don’t do those things. They just eliminate options, that’s what they’re supposed to do. In the case of the family depending on the coal mining income, and the unborn child, they also eliminate people.
And starvation ranks very, very high, on the list of unpleasant ways to leave this world.
Uh, what were we talking about again? Compassion or something?
- mkfreeberg | 02/03/2014 @ 22:24Captain Midnight: My first comment was addressed to Severian and wasn’t considered as part of my count.
That’s fine. You can start counting wherever you please, but it was your first comment on the thread. No biggie.
Captain Midnight: But they are separate posts, and when added to the first one, add up to three.
Fine. Fine. Fine. See, we answered you thrice.
You don’t seem to be making a coherent point. At issue is whether government should regulate child labor. You have indicated the Constitution does allow it under the Commerce Clause, but haven’t actually answered the question.
mkfreeberg: They just eliminate options, that’s what they’re supposed to do.
In the case state-provided childhood education, it provides an option that would otherwise not be available to the poor. Indeed, major developed country provide and mandates childhood education.
In any case, you have made your position clear. That’s all we asked.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 06:30http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
In the case state-provided childhood education, it provides an option that would otherwise not be available to the poor. Indeed, major developed country provide and mandates childhood education.
And then the child labor laws denied them the option of working, which means if that source of income was required for their family’s continuing survival — almost certainly the case — the law denied them the option of living.
Unfortunately, we’re not in a good situation to go arguing about the statistics. Child laborers who actually needed the money, unborn children, races and classes on the wrong end of the Eugenics issue, slaves; all voiceless, forgotten people. We’re not supposed to think about them, they screw up the progressive narratives.
Wonder what kind of grades the mandatory-unemployed coal-mining children got before they starved to death?
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2014 @ 06:58mkfreeberg: And then the child labor laws denied them the option of working, which means if that source of income was required for their family’s continuing survival — almost certainly the case — the law denied them the option of living.
Child labor in industry wasn’t ended until the 1930s. At the same time, a social support system was put in place. There was already a public education system. Studies of school lunch programs showed the children gained significant weight.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 07:04At the same time, a social support system was put in place.
In theory, that takes care of everything. Just like, in theory, Detroit children are fabulously well-educated because of the $12k per student.
But reality and theory are not the same In y’all’s rebuttal to the Detroit point, we see how well progressives can reckon with reality.
Frightening indeed. And the problem continues today. Innocent middle-class and poor, kicked off their health care plans, by a cruel law that’s supposed to “fix America’s health care system and get everyone covered.” The tragic cases that prove the many problems with this, we’re just not supposed to talk about them…just the studies…
I don’t think I’d condemn my very worst enemy, in the moments of my greatest passion, to become subjects of progressive tinkering. Starvation is a terrible, terrible way to leave this world.
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2014 @ 07:21mkfreeberg: In theory, that takes care of everything.
Your comment seems to meander from the point. Ending child labor and implementing universal education didn’t lead to the mass starvation of young students in the 1930s. Instead, it led to the creation of a vast American middle class.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 07:24Instead, it led to the creation of a vast American middle class.
Yeah, I’m sure the industrial revolution wasn’t involved in any way. It was just the new rules that made everything possible. You didn’t build that!
The meandering-from-the-point, actually, is the conflation between opportunity and equality. These two things are not the same. In fact, when the equality is imposed from without, that kills opportunity.
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2014 @ 07:28@Morgan,
maybe they’d get it if you got all sanctimonious with a .jpg. Be sure not to embed it, though, because Teh Internets is Hard.
- Severian | 02/04/2014 @ 07:28mkfreeberg: Yeah, I’m sure the industrial revolution wasn’t involved in any way.
Sure, but continued prosperity depended on an educated middle class. In any case, you had suggested ending child labor in industry would lead to mass starvation. It didn’t. Indeed, it was followed by an unprecedented era of prosperity.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 07:31Sure, but continued prosperity depended on an educated middle class.
And the genderly-ambiguous person holding the sign about the womans’-studies class, and the life of luxury it has afford it and its child, is a model of how this all worked?
In any case, you had suggested ending child labor in industry would lead to mass starvation.
I did not comment on “mass.” It would behoove y’all to not misrepresent…
My point is, that a law that says you can’t do something — which is what most laws are, certainly that’s what child labor laws are — by its very nature, doesn’t make anything possible, it makes things impossible. That is its purpose and that is its effect.
The thing child labor laws prohibited, were things that someone, somehow, had logically determined were necessary for that child’s family’s continuing survival. So. This would be the part where y’all get to fill us in on what happened to those families, if they didn’t starve. So far, y’all have waxed lyrically of their educational opportunities, but the genderly-questionable person in the graphic makes it clear that you can’t eat an education (especially if the subject matter of that education happens to suck).
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2014 @ 07:37mkfreeberg: I did not comment on “mass.”
There were millions of children working in industry. You indicated they did so to avoid starvation. We pointed out that children in school lunch programs actually gained weight compared to their peers. We also noted that the U.S. entered a period with a rapidly expanding middle class, and general prosperity. This is all evidence against your position.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 07:45Z: You don’t seem to be making a coherent point. At issue is whether government should regulate child labor. You have indicated the Constitution does allow it under the Commerce Clause, but haven’t actually answered the question.
I don’t seem to be making a coherent point to you because you apparently have a script you run with instead of actually reading the words as they are written. The issue is not whether government should regulate child labor. The issue is this: “Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?” That should be familiar since it is the very question you posed and I’ve responded to. So far you have only begrudgingly and partially answered it. And sadly I see the need to prompt you again:
Please cite the Article/Section of the Constitution that gives government the role in child education.
- Captain Midnight | 02/04/2014 @ 11:11Captain Midnight: The issue is not whether government should regulate child labor. The issue is this: “Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?”
You did raise a constitutional question, but you never did answer. Does government have a role in ending childhood labor?
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 14:35Z: Does government have a role in ending childhood labor?
Government has no role in ending childhood labor because government has already done away with it. When a college student is getting her first paycheck, the specter of preteen urchins all dirty from coal dust is a century-old issue that doesn’t apply now. If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up a coal mining operation tomorrow? [Hint: this is where you answer the question with a number.]
So, now that your itch has been scratched, here’s the second prompting to answer:
Please cite the Article/Section of the Constitution that gives government the role in child education.
- Captain Midnight | 02/04/2014 @ 17:29Captain Midnight: Government has no role in ending childhood labor because government has already done away with it.
So the government had a role in ending childhood labor. The question is whether this was an appropriate use of government power. Not sure why you are afraid of affirmatively stating your position.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2014 @ 17:44Yes/no questions are easy when you’re just answering them according to your own sense of right and wrong. If someone takes issue, you just pronounce yourself morally superior, walk away, and that’s the end of it. You get to be the victor in every conflict — in your own mind.
Defining a rationale is far tricker. Let’s say the government did have a role in ending childhood labor. What would be the rationale? It’s obvious there’s no constitutional authority for this, The Z have ducked the challenge of citing a specific article/section several times now. What’s left, then?
Government has a role in putting an end to any & all useful work?
Kids should never get dirty? Kids should never do anything that actually matters to someone else? Kids should spend all their time either playing games, or in school, where we count on the teachers to be engaging them in learning (even though the Detroit example clearly shows that isn’t true)?
From those who answer “no,” the rationale is clearer: Government should not be empowered to do things outside what’s spelled out in the Constitution, even to act against situations a majority of citizens find morally contemptible, because that would create a tyranny-of-the-majority. That’s clear. It’s also sensible.
But…scolding people is fun. Talking down to people is fun. Acting morally outraged is so fun, that a lot of people can’t let go of it for too long, not even for a few minutes or so.
- mkfreeberg | 02/04/2014 @ 18:44Classic virtue junkie behavior. Because pointing out the obvious lack of Constitutional authorization for something is exactly the same as sending ten year old kids down a coal mine. Complete with .jpg.
It’s not like they’re the only leftists that get off on pictures of little kids, but still.
- Severian | 02/04/2014 @ 19:52mkfreeberg: If someone takes issue, you just pronounce yourself morally superior, walk away, and that’s the end of it.
Not at all. We’ve responded to your position. Your basic claim is that the cure is worse than the disease. We’ve argued that the disease is severe, that long hours working in industry stunt a child’s education, and slow economic development. We’ve argued that the cure does not have the deleterious effects you claim, that children didn’t starve when laws were child labor laws were enacted, but were more healthy, and that society prospered.
mkfreeberg: Government should not be empowered to do things outside what’s spelled out in the Constitution, even to act against situations a majority of citizens find morally contemptible, because that would create a tyranny-of-the-majority.
Captain Midnight seems to think child labor laws are constitutional under the Commerce Clause. So does the Supreme Court, which has a role in your constitution. In any case, the U.S. Constitution can be amended, so the question remains whether you think the government should have a role in ending child labor. From everything we’ve gathered, you think this should be legal.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
That’s all we asked.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 06:33Severian: Because pointing out the obvious lack of Constitutional authorization for something is exactly the same as sending ten year old kids down a coal mine.
Not at all. One can support constitutional government without supporting all of its provisions. The Supreme Court has found child labor laws to be constitutional.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 06:35In any case, the U.S. Constitution can be amended, so the question remains whether you think the government should have a role in ending child labor. From everything we’ve gathered, you think this should be legal.
That’s all we asked.
I’m sorry, I’m confused. Y’all previously said “you’ve made your position clear,” in regard to my own approval or lack of approval of the dust bunnies. Now, y’all seem to be retreating to y’all’s comfort zone of “We waited for an answer which never came.” Y’all just contradicted y’all’selves.
Are y’all retreating from y’all’s previous claim?
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 06:40mkfreeberg: Now, y’all seem to be retreating to y’all’s comfort zone of “We waited for an answer which never came.”
Not at all. The question “Should government have a role” is independent of the constitutional question. From what we have gathered, you think this should be legal.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
However, feel free to correct us if we are wrong on restating your position.
The rest of your argument we also addressed: Your basic claim is that the cure is worse than the disease. We’ve argued that the disease is severe, that long hours working in industry stunt a child’s education, and slow economic development. We’ve argued that the cure does not have the deleterious effects you claim, that children didn’t starve when laws were child labor laws were enacted, but were more healthy, and that society prospered.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 06:51Z: Captain Midnight seems to think child labor laws are constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
You’re making an ass of you and umption here.
But before we squirrel off onto how much of an ass, you still have plenty of questions posed to you that your have yet to address.
1) You claimed “other powers” outside of Section 8 as justification for child labor laws. Please site the article and section that those “other powers” are located.
2) What is the article and section of the Constitution that grants government the role in child education.
3) If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up a coal mining operation tomorrow?
- Captain Midnight | 02/05/2014 @ 06:53Captain Midnight: But before we squirrel off onto …
We apologize if we misrepresented your position. This is your chance to set the record straight. Are child labor laws constitutional under the Commerce Clause? Regardless of the constitution (which is subject to amendment), do you think government has a role in regulating child labor?
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 07:03However, feel free to correct us if we are wrong on restating your position.
No, that is not what y’all said. “You’ve made your position clear.” Y’all have no residual uncertainty about this, y’all said it here and here, Then, y’all went and said “the question remains.”
Are y’all retreating from y’all’s previous claim?
As usual, these dialogues eventually come to resemble what one would expect not merely of an exchange across factions, or countries, or worlds, but entire universes. It’s like y’all come from a place where the concept of uncertainty is something that requires no acknowledgment or understanding because it simply doesn’t exist; everybody’s worth is judged according to their fidelity to the cause, so everybody is certain of everything all the time, no matter what. Government definitely has a role in ending work, everybody should be for that, anybody who questions it must be on the side of…well…that’s when we post another picture of dust bunnies.
Meanwhile. Detroit is still Detroit. So the advocates for progressive policy remain very, very VERY sure of themselves — and innocent people continue to suffer. How sad.
Starvation ranks very, very high, on the list of unpleasant ways to leave this world.
Uh, what were we talking about? Compassion or something?
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 07:04mkfreeberg: Are y’all retreating from y’all’s previous claim?
Not at all. Arguing the constitution may be tangentially related, but doesn’t directly address the question. We understand that your position is that government should not regulate child labor, regardless of any constitutional restriction.
mkfreeberg: Starvation ranks very, very high, on the list of unpleasant ways to leave this world.
Yes. We responded to this point. Do you remember?
Your basic claim is that the cure is worse than the disease. We’ve argued that the disease is severe, that long hours working in industry stunt a child’s education, and slow economic development. We’ve argued that the cure does not have the deleterious effects you claim, that children didn’t starve when laws were child labor laws were enacted, but were more healthy, and that society prospered.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 07:07We understand that your position is that government should not regulate child labor, regardless of any constitutional restriction.
Then why say “the question remains”?
It seems like, in y’all’s universe, the measure of certainty vs. uncertainty is used to provide a sort of rhetorical device, and for no other purpose.
Detroit invests a very high amount — or it did, anyway, while it was still capable of doing so — in this “education” of which y’all wax so lyrically. The results speak for themselves. Back here in our universe, where people live who actually build things that have to work, we would say such a situation would be a good time to form new uncertainties about things, like: What is “education”? Are all things masquerading under that word, deserving of it? In other words, is anything called “education” truly more educational than, say, working in a coal mine?
It’s almost as if, feeling morally superior to other people, takes precedence over actually helping the less fortunate, or for that matter changing the outcome of any real situation anywhere for the better. And by “almost as if” what I mean to say is, my own uncertainty about this has been coming close to flat-lining, for awhile now.
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 07:22mkfreeberg: Then why say “the question remains”?
The question remains regardless of the constitutional issue. You know, remainder, what’s left over.
You’ve made some arguments, to which we have responded. You claimed they would starve. We pointed out that at the same time child labor laws were instituted, school lunch programs went national, and there were other supports put in place for families. We also pointed out that the children didn’t starve, but were healthier than their peers. Furthermore, society as a whole began a fundamental change, with an expanding middle class, and growing prosperity.
But just so we are clear, you think this should be legal.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 07:27http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
Sorry, Z. Before you get to ask any more questions to me, you have an answer deficit to dig yourself out of first.
1) You claimed “other powers” outside of Section 8 as justification for child labor laws. Please site the article and section that those “other powers” are located.
2) What is the article and section of the Constitution that grants government the role in child education.
3) If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up a coal mining operation tomorrow?
- Captain Midnight | 02/05/2014 @ 07:33The question remains regardless of the constitutional issue. You know, remainder, what’s left over.
No, that is not what y’all said.
In any case, the U.S. Constitution can be amended, so the question remains whether you think the government should have a role in ending child labor.
Does a question remain about whether I think the dustbunnies should be legal, or does it not?
Are y’all retracting y’all’s previous claim?
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 07:36Captain Midnight: Before you get to ask any more questions to me
Any more questions? We have offered one basic question. Does government have a role in regulating child labor? You haven’t answered even that one question.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 07:39mkfreeberg: Does a question remain about whether I think the dustbunnies should be legal, or does it not?
From what we gather, you think this should be legal.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 07:41http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Childlabourcoal.jpg
So y’all are retracting y’all’s previous claim that “the question remains”?
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 07:41Rules for the Zachriel Universe:
1. Certainty versus uncertainty has no practical application. Potential has no practical application. EVERYTHING is certain, even events that are to take place in the future; phrases such as “the question remains” are merely used as rhetorical devices.
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 07:442. When a question is asked by the opposition, a perfectly satisfactory answer can be provided in the form of another question.
3. Pictures of things, such as NOAA graphs and dirty kids, make entire arguments.
4. Concede nothing! Ever!
mkfreeberg: So y’all are retracting y’all’s previous claim that “the question remains”?
There’s nothing to retract. The question of whether you support laws regulating child labor remains regardless of constitutional issues.
remainder, something left over after other parts have been taken away.
mkfreeberg: Rules for the Zachriel Universe
Nothing in this comment seems relevant. We appreciate you answering our question about your position.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 07:53I, for one, have learned something very illuminating from this exchange: The existence of virtue porn.
Most virtue junkies get their fix Ed Darrell-style — “why do you hate ____”? That seems to be insufficient for the hardcore addict, though, and so the Zachriel have to use visual aids. They must need to clean off their keyboards every time they post that picture of children. (Which explains why they never embed the link — too hard to type HTML with just one hand).
Which makes this whole thread blog-frottage. Eeewwww.
- Severian | 02/05/2014 @ 08:02Captain Midnight: Before you get to ask any more questions to me
Z: Any more questions? We have offered one basic question. Does government have a role in regulating child labor? You haven’t answered even that one question.
Earth to Asshat: the question you posed was “Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?” I have struggled to get you to address your question, but while you enjoy peppering people with questions of your own, you answer questions with the same eagerness and alacrity as a three-year-old eating cold Brussels sprouts.
Over on the War Based on Lies post on Rotten Chestnuts, I tried to get you to point out the inaccuracies of a statement from a joint resolution by Congress. After multiple back and forths, you finally stated, “There were al Qaeda operatives in many countries, including the United States, so there probably were in Iraq too.”
Behold the response of the incurious. There is no follow up of “So I decided to check it out for myself.” Is it true? Is it false? Meh, you don’t know and you don’t care to know. When I pointed out this lack of curiosity, you responded:
“Or you could have supported the statement by providing evidence. We were happy to grant the point, but were willing to look at whatever information you might have had.”
Ah, the cry of people too lazy to look things up for themselves! It’s so much easier to ask others to spoon-feed information than dig it up by yourself. But here’s the kicker–you are a cuttlefish who blasts out gobs of digital ink as a defense mechanism against others you meet online. And as a cuttlefish, you assume that others are also cuttlefish blasting out distractionary digital ink. So you really don’t want see information from others.
Why do I say that? Because here on Morgan’s blog, I linked multiple times to a 17 minute TED Talk that Bjorn Lomborg gave. And after posting back and forth for about a month it became obvious that you had never watched the video.
You. Did. Not. Watch. It.
So I see no sense in spending time responding to someone who demands that others answer questions while avoiding them himself, who has no curiosity when it comes to learning something new, who desires to have information spoon-fed, and then fails to actually follow through when presented with information. Instead, I’d rather spend time with something actually useful when I go into the underwater zone on Kingdom of Loathing.
So swim on, little cuttlefish, swim on.
- Captain Midnight | 02/05/2014 @ 10:33Captain Midnight: the question you posed was “Does the government have a role in ending childhood labor, and making sure children have a basic education?”
Yes, that was the question. We never did see your answer.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2014 @ 10:51Captain Midnight,
well, you gave it your best shot. As did I. It’s a credit to our host, I suppose, that he doesn’t just ban them. I did –on the theory that public masturbation is illegal– and I feel RC is a much nicer place to hang out now.
- Severian | 02/05/2014 @ 11:08No screencaps neceessary for that one.
- mkfreeberg | 02/05/2014 @ 11:20Well, that was fun!
- drowningpuppies | 02/05/2014 @ 14:56I admire your patience and the general assfucking of this Z person or persons.
Comedy gold.
They are God’s gift to a sadistic sense of humor, no doubt about that. I just wish “arguing” with them didn’t always feel like winning the high jump at the paralympics…..
- Severian | 02/05/2014 @ 16:25[…] discussion arose over at Morgan Freeberg’s House of Eratosthenes blog about equality, and the resident cuttlefish asked a worthwhile question: “Does the […]
- Government’s Role in Child Labor Laws and Education | The Captain's Comments | 02/26/2014 @ 10:03Captain Midnight: Before you get to ask any more questions to me
Any more questions? We have offered one basic question. Does government have a role in regulating child labor? You haven’t answered even that one question. Still.
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 14:36Z: We have offered one basic question. Does government have a role in regulating child labor?
You really suck at this whole memory thing. How about you read your very first comment to Morgan’s post to refresh your memory on what your basic question was? (Hint: you made this claim once before and had your nose rubbed in your original question. You even acknowledged that was the question, and here you are changing it again.)
And before I waste another word to you on this subject, there are three questions that have been posed to you that you have yet to address:
1) You claimed “other powers” outside of Section 8 as justification for child labor laws. Please site the article and section that those “other powers” are located.
2) What is the article and section of the Constitution that grants government the role in child education.
3) If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up a coal mining operation tomorrow?
Only when you have addressed these three questions will I continue with the discussion. That should be sufficiently clear for you, even with your remarkable reading comprehension issues.
- Captain Midnight | 04/23/2014 @ 08:12Captain Midnight: How about you read your very first comment to Morgan’s post to refresh your memory on what your basic question was?
Z: Do you think the government has an interest when people are too poor to send their children to school? Or even so poor children have to work long hours under grueling and dangerous conditions?
Z: Does government have a role in regulating child labor?
Um, they are closely related same questions, which you have yet to answer.
Captain Midnight: 1) You claimed “other powers” outside of Section 8 as justification for child labor laws. Please site the article and section that those “other powers” are located.
We quoted the Constitution: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
In any case, child labor laws were upheld in U.S. v. Darby Lumber under the Commerce Clause of section 8. We mentioned this already.
Captain Midnight: 2) What is the article and section of the Constitution that grants government the role in child education.
The Commerce Clause for the U.S., while most states have some sort of provision for education, as well.
Captain Midnight: 3) If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up a coal mining operation tomorrow?
Children probably wouldn’t have a role in coal mining, but there are many who would be forced to work rather than go to school.
Now, does government have a role in regulating child labor?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 11:55Z: Do you think the government has an interest when people are too poor to send their children to school? Or even so poor children have to work long hours under grueling and dangerous conditions?
Z: Does government have a role in regulating child labor?
Z: Um, they are closely related same questions, which you have yet to answer.
It’s that pesky AND giving you grief again. Your initial comment had TWO questions: government schooling AND child labor laws. Your subsequent one left out 50%. Is this clear?
Captain Midnight: 1) You claimed “other powers” outside of Section 8 as justification for child labor laws. Please site the article and section that those “other powers” are located.
Z: We quoted the Constitution: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”
I’m going to quote what I wrote the last time you proposed that answer:
Captain Midnight: 2) What is the article and section of the Constitution that grants government the role in child education.
Z: The Commerce Clause for the U.S., while most states have some sort of provision for education, as well.
You are reeeeally making a stretch to have “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” apply to schooling. If that is the justification, then there is NOTHING beyond Congress’s scope to make laws, and Section 8 of the Constitution can be simplified to “The Congress shall have Power To do anything it damn well pleases.” Doesn’t seem to agree with the Founding Fathers’ idea of a limited federal government, but it is very true to the current liberal idea of a government that is all things to all people.
Captain Midnight: 3) If all child labor laws were obliterated tonight because Pres. Obama has a pen, how many preteen youths would show up a coal mining operation tomorrow?
Z: Children probably wouldn’t have a role in coal mining, but there are many who would be forced to work rather than go to school.
Many? Proof? With teenage unemployment bouncing around 19%, there sure is a burning need for teen workers.
Z: Now, does government have a role in regulating child labor?
Since reading comprehension is a struggle for you, I’ll repeat my answer to a very similar question from before.
It took you over two months to supply an answer. Good for you!
Now, as for a role in “regulating” child labor, I’ll quote myself again:
- Captain Midnight | 05/07/2014 @ 16:08Captain Midnight: Your initial comment had TWO questions: government schooling AND child labor laws.
This is such an amazing fact! I gotta write this down so I can ponder it fully. *scribble* Well, with one new thing learned, I’d say today is starting off well.
Captain Midnight: You are reeeeally making a stretch to have “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” apply to schooling.
Education is an important concern in commerce. It’s also authorized under the power of Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare. In any case, the question was whether education is a proper concern of government, not just the U.S. federal government.
Captain Midnight: Government has no role in ending childhood labor because government has already done away with it.
That just sidesteps the question. Other countries today are facing the same issue the U.S. did a century ago.
By the way, there are tens of thousands of children in the U.S. who work, primarily in agriculture. They have much higher rates of dropping out of school, so as we said above, the issues are linked.
- Zachriel | 05/09/2014 @ 02:59So Apparently It’s Legal for Seven-Year-Olds (!) to Work On Tobacco Farms
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 17:04http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/05/14/tobacco_farm_minors_children_as_young_as_seven_report_health_consequences.html