Holt on April 22, 2011, 04:12:12 pm
Aye but an education opens up further opportunities for the child. If they simply worked a factory then they'd never have the chance to do more than that. You'd be lucky if they were even literate. Now to corporate feudalists this is great. The peasants must be poorly educated after all. But to anyone who gives half a fuck about people? It's unacceptable.

Libertarians and Anarchist Capitalists whether they want to admit it or not are simply variants of corporate feudalists. In any system they propose the corps will inevitably become the new kings and lords, the worker will return to being the peasant and the people at the bottom will suffer while those at the top engage in wanton foppery.

SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 04:51:15 pm
But is the ZAP not undeniably breached when someone intervenes in another person's voluntary non-violent activities "for his/her own good"?

Okay, I think I have parsed the double negative. "Is the ZAP violated when a third-party uses force to interfere with another person's solo or consensual activity, whether violent or not?"

Yup.

However, if the interference does not use force (e.g., "Stop that or I will tell your mother!"), there is no violation. Whether the activity is non-violent or violent is pretty much irrelevant. If two guys agree to have a fight to the death with 10-pound sledgehammers, more power to them. Hell, if they want to sell tickets, that's their right too.

SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 04:53:46 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.

Consider it a warning. Do not leave your kids alone with Holt!

Holt on April 22, 2011, 04:56:23 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.

Consider it a warning. Do not leave your kids alone with Holt!

I will sell them. Because you love unrestrained capitalism.

SandySandfort on April 22, 2011, 04:58:21 pm
Obviously, in an anarchy, the age of consent is a parental judgment....

Obviously? How do you figure that?

Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 05:00:36 pm
To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.

Nonsense. It is politically economically impossible for laws criminalizing the productive employment of children to have any beneficial effect whatsoever, or even any practical puissance providing that the value of a child's work product is in any way significant.

For subsistance farmers all over the world, the ability of children in the first decade of life to perform agricultural chores provides a value that so commonly exceeds the cost of that child's upkeep that (except in times of profound famine) it has been customary for farmers to actively foster and adopt such children, male and female.  Recall the "orphan trains" of late 19th Century America. 

Moreover, a child can be extremely productive as a worker without any real impairment of his/her education.  Children employed as actors in the theater, in the film industy, and in television are gainfully engaged in intensively laborious remunerative activities while sustaining no objectively demonstrable adverse consequences with regard to their educations.  Horror stories about "child stars" focus on the gaudy exceptions, not the experiences of most youngsters so engaged. 

The professional educationalists - particularly those employed in government school systems - have increasingly stressed the value of total immersion in the pedagogical process, and in recent years have demanded that children given into their control live lives utterly committed to didactic instruction of one kind or another.  When children are not directly under the command of teachers, they're hammered with homework set to reinforce the ideological conditioning ordained by their captors.   

But the experience of child actors offers proof that very little formal classroom time is really needed to provide youngsters in the first two decades of life with the structured educational experience required to perform intellectually at levels of function equal or superior to those attained by age-peers compelled to suffer through six or eight hours of daily schooling for five days a week, nine months a year. 

The truth about child labor in manufacturing is the same as holds for adult unskilled manual labor in the same venues.  Repetitious "donkey work" functions in factories are far more cost-efficiently fulfilled by way of systems engineering solutions, which also have the advantages of quality enhancement and consistency. 

One of the truths most inconvenient for the professional educationalists (and the vast pork-barrel machinery of government schooling) is that children and adolescents would almost certainly be better off - not only more content but also better educated - were their school days cut in half, their classroom time confined to the inculcation of those skills which best facilitated the individual's acquisition of such knowledge as he or she would tend to find of greatest utility and enjoyment. 

The rest of their time the children can and should put to such purposes as they find most beneficial.  In a free society, ceteris paribus, that would tend to see many of them seeking and engaging in profitable enterprise of one kind or another.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2011, 05:03:36 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Holt on April 22, 2011, 05:05:22 pm
Children employed in the film, theatre and television industries also have a habit of turning out completely fucked up.

VonZorch on April 22, 2011, 05:19:49 pm
I wager there would be rampant child molestation.

Holt's posts have the highest concentration of psychological projection that I've ever seen.

Is that what you call it?  I was thinking Weapons Grade Stupidtm.

Holt on April 22, 2011, 05:37:15 pm
Is that what you call it?  I was thinking Weapons Grade Stupidtm.

"He disagrees with me ergo he is stoopid!"

Tucci78 on April 22, 2011, 05:50:53 pm
Children employed in the film, theatre and television industries also have a habit of turning out completely fracked up.

Heck, I thought I'd pre-empted such idiocy by observing that "Horror stories about 'child stars' focus on the gaudy exceptions, not the experiences of most youngsters so engaged.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of children who have spent years functioning as gainfully employed actors tend to suffer no adverse educational outcomes no matter what the other stressors of their careers might have imposed to leave any particular minority of them "completely fracked up." 

We have to wonder whether there is any statistically significant difference between the incidence of "fracked up" among child actors relative to the general non-acting population of their age-peers, don't we?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Bob G on April 22, 2011, 06:43:14 pm
... if people are afraid to admit in public that they've obtained information from illegal sources, it can be kept out of public debate.

Think Wikileaks and internet conspiracy theorists. Information wants to be free.

And lunatics are convinced that the royal family are evil space lizards who drink human blood.

My hat's off to you, Holt. That's the nonest non sequitur with which you've yet come up .
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

J Thomas on April 22, 2011, 06:44:27 pm

In another thread, months ago, I quoted a ~1913 survey of some 400 child factory workers, nearly all of whom preferred the factory to school, and a 1980s survey of some 8000 high school students who were asked whether they would choose school or work if they were paid for school at the same rate as their jobs and only 16 chose school.

An example of preferring the devil you don't know. If they had spent as much time working the particular job as they had spent in school, then they could make an informed choice.

Bob G on April 22, 2011, 07:02:03 pm
et cetera,et cetera,
Libertarians and Anarchist Capitalists whether they want to admit it or not are simply variants of corporate feudalists.
et ad nauseam cetera


Continually repeating your assumptions and assertions does not make them any more true.
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

Holt on April 22, 2011, 07:05:37 pm
My hat's off to you, Holt. That's the nonest non sequitur with which you've yet come up .

Knew it would go over your head. Anarchists have trouble seeing more than the surface of anything.
Ok lets explain it all for you.

You have Four groups.
Groups A, B and C live together in one social structure. Group D lives on its own far away.

Group A tells groups B and C what to do. But for the most part Group C shirks any responsibility and constantly says Group A are out to kill them despite this being proven false consistently. Group B therefore tends to ignore whatever Group C says because chances are its incorrect.

Group A decides it wants to hassle Group D for some reason. So it does so. Group B due to its circumstances is unable to become directly aware of this while Group C can, Group C then spreads this information to members of Group B saying Group A are finally showing their true colours. Naturally Group B ignores Group C because they have been proven to be idiots in the past.
As such Group A is free to continue hassling Group D and because Group A has been less consistent in terms of being incorrect than Group C, they are believed when they give "their side of the story".

Group D cries. Group B doesn't care and continues with its collective lives. Group C doesn't actually care either and was just looking for ammunition to bring Group B to their side and thus they move onto their next story. Group A laughs and laughs and laughs.

Continually repeating your assumptions and assertions does not make them any more true.

You are either that or a fool. There could be no other result to the establishment of an anarchist society. After all we're social creatures at heart.

Brugle on April 22, 2011, 07:09:27 pm
To be fair child labour laws were put in place to make it possible for children to get an education rather than spending their childhoods working in the factories.

No, that is the excuse believed only by the terminally naive.  The actual reason for child labor laws was to increase the power of government officials allied with labor union leaders.

Besides, you confuse government schools with education.  Government schools are designed and operated to turn curious children into "good citizens", which means preventing education.  Read any of the books by John Taylor Gatto--some are online.