Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Mentork · Sep 17, 2008

Metropolis said:
You are right. Nobody would want to work. So, that means the company will need to fix up the place and make it so kids WANT to work.

People will do things they don't want to do to put food on the table. Factory owners should not be allowed to take advantage of basic human needs, much less the needs of children.

Furthermore kids should be at school, where are they going to get the time to do this?

Metropolis said:
no one gets beat now-a-days -

You are lying, and even then she could be psychologically abused into doing it.

Metropolis said:
And, a prostitute? What's wrong with that? It's her body. Her choice.

What part of she is not of the age of consent don't you get?

Metropolis said:
We are libertarians. We don't care what other people do. As long as it is not hindering our body/life, then we are fine. If little Martha wants to whore herself out, go for it. If little Timmy wants to work in the factory for endless hours, go for it. You're not hurting me. You're not hurting anyone but yourself.

So would it be ok if someone walked into a crowded mall with a gun and blasted his own brains out? He is, after all, not hurting anyone but himself.

Mentork · Sep 17, 2008

Voluntary said:
Why is this the government's responsibility?

Because if the government doesn't do it then nobody else will.

Voluntary · Sep 17, 2008

Mentork said:
Because if the government doesn't do it then nobody else will.

I am laughing at you.

Onion Eater · Sep 17, 2008

Voluntary said:
Could you elaborate since I am not completely understanding? Are you attacking the assumptions, as put forth by Blaugh:‘perfectly rational, omniscient, identical consumers; zero transaction costs; complete markets for all time-stated claims for all conceivable contingent events, no trading at disequilibrium prices; no radical, incalculable uncertainty…; only linearly homogenous production functions; no technical progress requiring capital investment, etc’ (Blaug, 1997, p. 5)…

or are you cutting to a deeper level?

One can easily attack the assumptions of GE theory and any decent economist will tell you that you can relax the assumptions.

I am cutting to a deeper level. I am not advocating relaxing the assumptions of GE Theory, I am advocating abandoning it in favor of my own set of axioms, which are listed at the top of my home page.

Read Axiomatic Economics by Victor Aguilar: Simplified Exposition of Axiomatic Economics for a brief overview of my theory. This is a 28-page paper that requires some calculus, though I have simplified one of the axioms to make the paper accessible to people without a background in real analysis.

I also have a short (600-word) excerpt which compares my axiomatic system to that of Debreu and Kolmogorov, Axiomatic Economics by Victor Aguilar: Excerpt about Arrow, Debreu, Keen, Stiglitz and Kolmogorov

Onion Eater · Sep 17, 2008

Mentork said:
Because if the government doesn't do it [help people under the poverty line learn to read] then nobody else will.

Voluntary said:
I am laughing at you.

We are all laughing at you, Mentork. That's absurd.

Has it occurred to you that people might teach their own children to read? Or a group of parents might hire a private tutor? Home-schooled children routinely win the national spelling bee - who taught them to read?

There is such a thing as people taking responsibility for their own welfare and the welfare of their own children. Have you heard of this concept?

Mentork · Sep 17, 2008

Onion Eater said:
We are all laughing at you, Mentork. That's absurd.

Then tell me Onion Eater, what purpose does public school serve?

Onion Eater said:
Has it occurred to you that people might teach their own children to read? Or a group of parents might hire a private tutor?

Some well off parents might, but a single mom who works for minimum wage, has nether the time, nor the money to do this, how will her child learn to read?

Tell me Onion Eater, if we do not need government intervention, then why are there so man jobs that pay exactly $7.25 an hour? I mean if capitalism has progressed so far, then why do so many jobs pay exactly what the government requires them to pay workers, and nothing more? Surely if we have progressed so far without regulation, then even the sadist of jobs would pay slightly more then what we label as exactly what it takes to live off of.

Ethereal · Sep 18, 2008

Such a shame. But, no one gets beat now-a-days - So, then, I think it'd be fair to remove the child labor laws.

And, a prostitute? What's wrong with that? It's her body. Her choice.

We are libertarians. We don't care what other people do. As long as it is not hindering our body/life, then we are fine. If little Martha wants to whore herself out, go for it. If little Timmy wants to work in the factory for endless hours, go for it. You're not hurting me. You're not hurting anyone but yourself.

Responsibility should be in the hands of the person - not the government. No one should ever tell me that I should not do something because of 'potential problems'.

Please cease and desist your association with libertarianism as your ideas are quite insane. Children do not possess the mental faculties for informed consent and as such we have a moral obligation to protect them from making bad decisions, such as becoming a prostitute or a chronic drug user. Libertarians espouse minimal regulation, not the complete absence of it. You, sir, are a nihlistic anarchist and your ideas sicken me.

Mentork · Sep 18, 2008

Ethereal said:
Please cease and desist your association with libertarianism as your ideas are quite insane. Children do not possess the mental faculties for informed consent and as such we have a moral obligation to protect them from making bad decisions, such as becoming a prostitute or a chronic drug user. Libertarians espouse minimal regulation, not the complete absence of it. You, sir, are a nihlistic anarchist and your ideas sicken me.

Congratulations, you have redeemed my respect for libertariains that Metropolis and Goldenboy had lost. I can see clearly now that libertarians are sane rational people, it's just guys like Metropolis and Goldenboy calling themselves libertarians giving them a bad name.

Metropolis · Sep 18, 2008

People will do things they don't want to do to put food on the table. Factory owners should not be allowed to take advantage of basic human needs, much less the needs of children.

Furthermore kids should be at school, where are they going to get the time to do this?

.. Since when are kids the prime money-makers in the family?

I am not saying to take every child and throw him out of the house (well, beat him out of the house, you need to have that in there for "proper" child labor), and make him live on his on.

I am simply stating if a child wants to get a job, they should be able to do at any age. It's pathetic how the government tells them they can't work, or do this, or do that. It's the market that should be deciding who works, and who doesn't.

Thus, if a child wants to work after school, at whatever age, by all means - Have a job. These "Child Labor Laws" make it so you can't work more than 3.5 hours on weekdays. What kind of bull**** is that? If the child wants to work from 3 PM, to 9 PM - Let them.

It's NOT all about DOING it (which you think it is). It's about being ABLE to do it. In which, and unfortunately, the government restricts you from doing so.

If there is a bomb on the table - Does that mean you need to set it off? Nope. If there are no child labor laws, does that mean you need to drop out of school, get beat and then go to work for 16 hours a day to get ass-raped by your boss? Nope!

You are lying, and even then she could be psychologically abused into doing it.

Rofl. Because, you know - No one else can be psychologically abused into doing something.

What part of she is not of the age of consent don't you get?

She's not a light pole. She is not PLACED at the corner for eternity. SHE is the one who marches her little ass to the corner, and sells her body. And, if she wants to do that - Go for it.

Consent? She has it.

I find it funny how the government and people like you assume that everyone under 18 does not have consent or basic brain power to compute what the hell they want to do. And, yet, you are the same people who scream equality for 'all'.

So would it be ok if someone walked into a crowded mall with a gun and blasted his own brains out? He is, after all, not hurting anyone but himself.

Oh? People in America do it. You don't see anyone up in arms about it.

Please cease and desist your association with libertarianism as your ideas are quite insane. Children do not possess the mental faculties for informed consent and as such we have a moral obligation to protect them from making bad decisions, such as becoming a prostitute or a chronic drug user. Libertarians espouse minimal regulation, not the complete absence of it. You, sir, are a nihlistic anarchist and your ideas sicken me.

I'll pass. I actually like a government, just one that is there for Law and Order. Not saying that people are 'not old enough' to consent. I understand children are vulnerable, but, isn't it the parent's job to guide them the right way as opposed to the government?

And, I understand minimal regulation. Of course, there is no possible way we can remove minimum wage, unions, or anything else. However, there is no reason we need to overpay burger flippers.

Mentork · Sep 18, 2008

Metropolis said:
I am not saying to take every child and throw him out of the house (well, beat him out of the house, you need to have that in there for "proper" child labor), and make him live on his on.

But you are, if the government you want is as small as you make it out to be, who will be there to make sure parents take proper care of there children? And if they do get thrown outta the hose, who will take care of them?

Tell me Metropolis, who is it that takes care of children that get thrown outta the house?

Metropolis said:
I am simply stating if a child wants to get a job, they should be able to do at any age.

So an 8 year old should be able to be a porn star if she wants to? How about if her dad beats her when she comes home without a check?

Metropolis said:
Thus, if a child wants to work after school,

No, that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about twelve hour shifts in a factory, you cant do that in your free time.

Metropolis said:
at whatever age, by all means - Have a job. These "Child Labor Laws" make it so you can't work more than 3.5 hours on weekdays. What kind of bull**** is that? If the child wants to work from 3 PM, to 9 PM - Let them.

And tell me, exactly, why a child would want to work for 13 hours a day (that is if they are going to school, mind you).

Metropolis said:
It's NOT all about DOING it (which you think it is). It's about being ABLE to do it. In which, and unfortunately, the government restricts you from doing so.

For good reason.

Metropolis said:
If there is a bomb on the table - Does that mean you need to set it off? Nope. If there are no child labor laws, does that mean you need to drop out of school, get beat and then go to work for 16 hours a day to get ass-raped by your boss? Nope!

But, if it happens once, just once, then your whole argument becomes invalid.

Metropolis said:
Rofl. Because, you know - No one else can be psychologically abused into doing something.

Children are especially acceptable to any type of abuse, don't you agree?

Metropolis said:
She's not a light pole. She is not PLACED at the corner for eternity.

What if she's not allowed to come home without money?

Metropolis said:
SHE is the one who marches her little ass to the corner, and sells her body. And, if she wants to do that - Go for it.

Have you ever heard of Statutory rape?

Metropolis said:
Consent? She has it.

Children can not make those types of decisions on there own, their minds are still weak and vulnerable.

Metropolis said:
I find it funny how the government and people like you assume that everyone under 18 does not have consent or basic brain power to compute what the hell they want to do. And, yet, you are the same people who scream equality for 'all'.

Just going to ask, how old are you?

Metropolis said:
Oh? People in America do it. You don't see anyone up in arms about it.

I am up in arms about it.

Tell me, if it is ok for people to commit suicide legally, as they are not hurting anyone else. Would it be ok if there was a company that sold death? I mean, "assisted" suicide? Where people who wanted to die could walk in, and pay a small fee to be killed? They are after all, not hurting anyone else, just helping people do what they where gonna do anyway.. maybe they could even have a booth for children, they can after all, think for themselves.

Metropolis said:
I'll pass. I actually like a government, just one that is there for Law and Order. Not saying that people are 'not old enough' to consent. I understand children are vulnerable, but, isn't it the parent's job to guide them the right way as opposed to the government?

What if the parents are abusive? Or neglectful?

Metropolis · Sep 18, 2008

But you are, if the government you want is as small as you make it out to be, who will be there to make sure parents take proper care of there children? And if they do get thrown outta the hose, who will take care of them?

Tell me Metropolis, who is it that takes care of children that get thrown outta the house?

Private Organizations.

Not some substandard government run organization.

So an 8 year old should be able to be a porn star if she wants to? How about if her dad beats her when she comes home without a check?

What is the likliness of that ever happening? This isn't 1910. Children don't need to work.

No, that's not what we are talking about, we are talking about twelve hour shifts in a factory, you cant do that in your free time.

We are two different playing fields, then. I, personally, do not believe in 12 hour workdays, unless of course, you WANT to do it. Not everyone child NEEDS to do it. Which I think is what you are failing to comprehend.

And tell me, exactly, why a child would want to work for 13 hours a day (that is if they are going to school, mind you).

They wouldn't. Now, I have a question for you. Why should the government restrict that if far few in between are going to do it? It's nonsense and a complete waste.

For good reason.

So, we should wait till we are 18, or the US government's view of the 'consentual' or 'developed' age to get a job? Or even the ability to get a job?

But, if it happens once, just once, then your whole argument becomes invalid.

Honestly, I'd like to see what you say happen. You know, get beat till you have a job, then get tortured at work in hazardous conditions, then to come home and get beat again because you didn't bring home enough money.

.. That sounds completely logical and 21st century like, yes?

Children are especially acceptable to any type of abuse, don't you agree?

I think everyone is acceptable to abuse.

What if she's not allowed to come home without money?

What are the odds of that ever happening?

Children can not make those types of decisions on there own, their minds are still weak and vulnerable.

Mm. So, everyone under 18 is weak and invulnerable. And, once they hit 18, they become 'strong' and 'invulnerable'.

Tell me, if it is ok for people to commit suicide legally, as they are not hurting anyone else. Would it be ok if there was a company that sold death? I mean, "assisted" suicide? Where people who wanted to die could walk in, and pay a small fee to be killed? They are after all, not hurting anyone else, just helping people do what they where gonna do anyway.. maybe they could even have a booth for children, they can after all, think for themselves.

Mm. Great idea! I'd love to walk in and check out the cataloge. Perhaps, they'll have crazy and exotic ways of dying. I'd be most definitely interested in watching a super-stretch type death!

What if the parents are abusive? Or neglectful?

Ohhh. So, you think I am pro-abusive and neglectful parents? Oh. Makes MUCH more sense now. In that case, of course there will be laws regarding abusing your child. Like I said, do whatever you want with the exception of hurting others. If you want to punch your baby - That's a no-no. You're hurting the infant. If you want to punch your wall? Go for it. It's yours. If you want to punch a store's wall - No. That'd be illegal. It's not your property.

And - I would love to hear a socialist view on abusive and neglectful parents? Does it involve having everyone on the neighborhood take turns taking care of the baby, and donating money? That's so loving!!!

Onion Eater · Sep 18, 2008

Ethereal said:
Please cease and desist your association with libertarianism as your ideas are quite insane. Children do not possess the mental faculties for informed consent and as such we have a moral obligation to protect them from making bad decisions, such as becoming a prostitute or a chronic drug user. Libertarians espouse minimal regulation, not the complete absence of it. You, sir, are a nihlistic anarchist and your ideas sicken me.

Agreed. Metropolis is giving libertarians a bad name.

However, Ethereal, please scroll up to the post that you are quoting and hit the quote button there - your post will still appear at the end of the list, but the included quote will be labeled "Originally Posted by Metropolis..." That way, we will all know who you are quoting.

As the author of the original post (OP), I'd hate to have people happen onto your reply and think that I am the one who is quite insane.

Incidentally, on the subject of the OP, does anyone have any comments contrasting GE Theory to my own Axiomatic Economics? That was really the point of this thread, not just to laugh at Mentork's complete ignorance of the concept of personal responsibility - though that is kind of funny.

Anyone who has read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, which is now over 60 years old, can easily rebut every one of Mentork's socialist schemes. Frankly, playing whack-a-mole with his justifications for socialism (homelessness, child labor, illiteracy, etc.) that were all dead and buried 60 years ago is not that interesting.

But Axiomatic Economics is a new idea that goes unanswered.

Ethereal · Sep 18, 2008

Congratulations, you have redeemed my respect for libertariains that Metropolis and Goldenboy had lost. I can see clearly now that libertarians are sane rational people, it's just guys like Metropolis and Goldenboy calling themselves libertarians giving them a bad name.

I wouldn't say that Goldenboy falls under the rubric of extremist libertarians. He and I are very similiar ideologically and I'm sure if you asked him he would agree that we have a moral obligation to safeguard children. Libertarians can be pragmatic as well as principled but this often goes overlooked because we do not feel a social safety net is the only viable way to have compassion for our fellow man. We feel it is the responsibility of communities, families, and individuals to care for the less fortunate, not the government. However, we do possess a moral obligation to safeguard children and government regulation is necessary so as to assure society's complicity in this regard.

I'll pass. I actually like a government, just one that is there for Law and Order. Not saying that people are 'not old enough' to consent. I understand children are vulnerable, but, isn't it the parent's job to guide them the right way as opposed to the government?

Informed consent is a well-established and valid legal principle. Children are easily taken advantage of be it through coercion or manipulation. Say a father "convinces" his child that prostituting themselves out at ten years old is in their best interest, or say a drug-dealer "convinces" a six year old that taking heroin is a good way to have fun. Without informed consent we have no legal recourse with which to adress either of these scenarios, both of which are characterized by coercion. Your ideas are not libertarian, they are characterized by moral nihlism and anarchy. In essence, they are insane.

And, I understand minimal regulation. Of course, there is no possible way we can remove minimum wage, unions, or anything else. However, there is no reason we need to overpay burger flippers.

This has nothing to do with our discussion and is a further testament to your ignorance of libertarianism. Most libertarians believe we can and should do without the minimum wage and coercive union policies. Minimal regulation does not, however, entail leaving children to their own devices.

Ethereal · Sep 18, 2008

Onion Eater said:
Agreed. Metropolis is giving libertarians a bad name.

However, Ethereal, please scroll up to the post that you are quoting and hit the quote button there - your post will still appear at the end of the list, but the included quote will be labeled "Originally Posted by Metropolis..." That way, we will all know who you are quoting.

As the author of the original post (OP), I'd hate to have people happen onto your reply and think that I am the one who is quite insane.

Incidentally, on the subject of the OP, does anyone have any comments contrasting GE Theory to my own Axiomatic Economics? That was really the point of this thread, not just to laugh at Mentork's complete ignorance of the concept of personal responsibility - though that is kind of funny.

Anyone who has read Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, which is now over 60 years old, can easily rebut every one of Mentork's socialist schemes. Frankly, playing whack-a-mole with his justifications for socialism (homelessness, child labor, illiteracy, etc.) that were all dead and buried 60 years ago is not that interesting.

But Axiomatic Economics is a new idea that goes unanswered.

Apologies but I'm sure anyone perusing this forum will be intelligent enough to extrapolate the original context of my discussion, however, I will acquiesce to your request. As for contrasting the GE Theory to your Axiomatic Economics you must allow me some time to peruse both theories accordingly so as to provide an intelligent analysis.

Onion Eater · Sep 18, 2008

Onion Eater said:
By arguing that there were other possible ways to stop child labor, like shaming the factory owners (Goldenboy) or that it was not so bad as long as the 12-year-olds wanted to work (Metropolis), you have tacitly accepted Mentork's claim that what actually happened was that child labor was prohibited by law - and that it would re-emerge today if those laws were revoked.

Goldenboy, your argument that they lacked "advanced means of communication" in the past is all wet. There was nothing wrong with newspapers of the time and the "sob sisters" (female journalists who specialized in heartbreaking stories) did a fine job exposing problems like child labor.

You let Mentork's scary photo put you on the defensive. (And imagine the backpedaling that Metropolis would be doing right now if Mentork had blindsided him with the 12-year-old-prostitute argument!) You'll never be a professional boxer if all you do is block the other guy's jabs and never try to line him up for a clout on the snooz. And you'll never be a professional debater if you let the other guy assume his conclusions.

Ethereal said:
I wouldn't say that Goldenboy falls under the rubric of extremist libertarians.

I agree, Ethereal: Goldenboy does not fall under the rubric of extreme libertarians.

I criticized both Goldenboy's and Metropolis' replies to Mentork as "all wet." However, Goldenboy's argument was much stronger than Metropolis' argument and, on reflection, I should probably have written seperate posts to each of them.

My real issue with Goldenboy was primarily that he was not debating very effectively. By offering an alternative means to stopping child labor, he tacitly accepted Mentork's claim that what actually happened was that child labor was prohibited by law - and that it would re-emerge today if those laws were revoked. However, Goldenboy's alternative to government intervention, shaming factory owners, was not in itself a particularly bad idea.

Mentork's photo is very old - the Irish potato famine was not long before this photo was taken. When people are desperately poor, as they were at this time, then no amount of laws and no amount of heartbreaking newspaper articles is going to change things. The only solution, and the one that actually did happen, is for capitalism to lift everyone out of such desperate poverty. Socialism is clearly a bad idea because, as everybody (except Mentork) knows, it impoverishes any society in which it is tried - if a society is rich, socialism will make it poor; if a society is poor, socialism will make it even poorer.

So Goldenboy was a poor debator - but Metropolis was just plain wrong. And, sadly, he is apparently too proud to heed my advise and is now getting beaten up by the 12-year-old-prostitute argument that I gave Mentork. And the really stupid thing is, Metropolis can't even say that he got blindsided by this argument since he observed me give it to Mentork and observed me say that backpedaling would be the only viable defense to it. Duh!

Mentork · Sep 18, 2008

Ok, I'm sorry goldenboy for lumping you in with Metropolis, as he is clearly in his own class of bull crap.

Metropolis said:
Private Organizations.

Not some substandard government run organization.

Wouldn't a private organization have to be making money off the children, and therefore, by definition, have be talking advantage of them.

Metropolis said:
What is the likliness of that ever happening? This isn't 1910. Children don't need to work.

And tell me, exactly, why it is children don't need to work.

Metropolis said:
We are two different playing fields, then. I, personally, do not believe in 12 hour workdays, unless of course, you WANT to do it. Not everyone child NEEDS to do it. Which I think is what you are failing to comprehend.

So if a child "wants" to drop out of school to work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day, then that would be ok?

Metropolis said:
They wouldn't. Now, I have a question for you. Why should the government restrict that if far few in between are going to do it? It's nonsense and a complete waste.

The government should protect children, the desperate, and the mentally Ill.

Metropolis said:
So, we should wait till we are 18, or the US government's view of the 'consentual' or 'developed' age to get a job? Or even the ability to get a job?

Yes. do you have a problem with that?

Metropolis said:
Honestly, I'd like to see what you say happen. You know, get beat till you have a job, then get tortured at work in hazardous conditions, then to come home and get beat again because you didn't bring home enough money.

.. That sounds completely logical and 21st century like, yes?

It happens evry day in third world countries where child labor isn't regulated.

Metropolis said:
I think everyone is acceptable to abuse.

I agree, but don't you think children are more vulnerable then adults?

Metropolis said:
Mm. Great idea! I'd love to walk in and check out the cataloge. Perhaps, they'll have crazy and exotic ways of dying. I'd be most definitely interested in watching a super-stretch type death!

I'm not sure what your defensive to my argument is...

32,439 people in the United states commit suicide each year... If it were Legal to assist them, don't you think a company would fill that niche?

Sorce

Metropolis said:
Ohhh. So, you think I am pro-abusive and neglectful parents? Oh. Makes MUCH more sense now. In that case, of course there will be laws regarding abusing your child. Like I said, do whatever you want with the exception of hurting others. If you want to punch your baby - That's a no-no. You're hurting the infant. If you want to punch your wall? Go for it. It's yours. If you want to punch a store's wall - No. That'd be illegal. It's not your property.

So, do you have a plan to rid America of child abuse?

Metropolis said:
And - I would love to hear a socialist view on abusive and neglectful parents? Does it involve having everyone on the neighborhood take turns taking care of the baby, and donating money? That's so loving!!!

I think they should be adopted, or government paid workers should take care of them, just like they do now.

Kushinator · Sep 18, 2008

Onion Eater said:
Goldenboy! Metropolis! You guys call yourselves libertarians and you're letting an 18-year-old socialist run circles around you!

Why, because he is presenting opinions backed by even more opinions?

Mentork is assuming his conclusion. His conclusion is that the only thing that stopped child labor in the past and prevents it today is legal prohibition.

But child labor still exists. First we have to define what child labor is. Of course, child is to be assumed as well because what defines child? Does an 11 year old babysitter who works 30 hrs a week watching kids justify?

By arguing that there were other possible ways to stop child labor, like shaming the factory owners (Goldenboy)

Your mistaking my position as that of disagreeing with child labor. I never said such nonsense.

Goldenboy, your argument that they lacked "advanced means of communication" in the past is all wet. There was nothing wrong with newspapers of the time and the "sob sisters" (female journalists who specialized in heartbreaking stories) did a fine job exposing problems like child labor.

Again, exposing child labor is not the point, exposing exploitation is. Nobody says a word when a child sitcom star has to put in adult like hours to make a show. There is a clear difference between paying a kid six, seven or even eight figures per year, and paying a kid say one half the wages an adult would make. I do not think i have to even mention unsafe working conditions, but there it is anyway.

To say that newspapers of the time benefited the way CNN does (in the form of ratings) when a child is found to be abused, assaulted, missing etc... is off base as well. People watch that, and producers attempt to provide all possible credible stories of that nature to the viewing public. Ratings mean viewers.

Watch what youtube does in the next couple of years.

The correct response is to challenge Mentork's assumption that the only thing that stopped child labor in the past and prevents it today is legal prohibition.

But has child labor truly stopped? I would say child exploitation is down, but kids still work.

Does Mentork have proof that these laws did not just codify what the free market had already accomplished, the withdrawal of children from the work force?

Again, a mistake of my position.

Perhaps the free market raised the living standards of everybody enough that families no longer had to depend on their children's earnings to make ends meet.

And again...

Perhaps, due to the wonders of capitalism, the parents alone could support their families and voluntarily sent their children to schools rather than to factories.

And again...

Perhaps the government had nothing to do with the demise of child labor and just took credit for it after the fact.

And again...

Goldenboy, you're a boxer; go on the offensive! Don't let Mentork define the terms of the debate. Make him prove that the demise of child labor did not happen as I describe. Make him prove that there are any Americans today who are so poor that, in the absense of legal prohibitions, they would make their 12-year-olds work in factories. (And how could they be so poor in the midst of capitalist plenty?) Put him on the defensive.

Its funny that you bring up boxing, and call me defensive. Actually it's ironic and ill tell you why. My style is defensively orientated built on timing, anticipation, as well as allowing my opponent to initiate their offense. Whenever a punch is thrown, a "window" opens in the form of an unprotected target. You must anticipate the opponents, but use a jab (or straight right for southpaws) to force your opponent to a specific side and then you allow timing to takeover. This is how you employ effective counter punching.

Basically you allow your opponent enough rope to hang himself.

You let Mentork's scary photo put you on the defensive. (And imagine the backpedaling that Metropolis would be doing right now if Mentork had blindsided him with the 12-year-old-prostitute argument!) You'll never be a professional boxer if all you do is block the other guy's jabs and never try to line him up for a clout on the snooz. And you'll never be a professional debater if you let the other guy assume his conclusions.

Isnt this what you have done? Assume

Mentork makes constant flaws in logic, which in their own regard weaken his position.

Metropolis · Sep 18, 2008

Wouldn't a private organization have to be making money off the children, and therefore, by definition, have be talking advantage of them.

No. Private Organizations can survive off of donations.

So if a child "wants" to drop out of school to work in a coal mine for 12 hours a day, then that would be ok?

If he wants to.

Just like it's okay for people to not work and depend on the government for paying all their bills.

Yes. do you have a problem with that?

Adults are just as stupid as kids. It's pathetic, and quite 'ageist' to say that children are dumb. You'd be surpirsed how smart they are.

It happens evry day in third world countries where child labor isn't regulated.

We're not a 3rd world country, now are we?

I agree, but don't you think children are more vulnerable then adults?

Most definitely in the early stages of life. But, we don't see three year olds working the coal mines. (Nor does anyone besides hicks in stupid small towns).

So, do you have a plan to rid America of child abuse?

Does anyone?

Say a father "convinces" his child that prostituting themselves out at ten years old is in their best interest, or say a drug-dealer "convinces" a six year old that taking heroin is a good way to have fun.

Well, heroin is quite fun, now that you brought it up.

But, don't we see that everywhere? Companies are always trying to "convince" you that you NEED that product? For example, Restless Leg Syndrome. Is it serious? No. Is it a real problem? No. Did one commercial convince millions that they have it? Yes.

So, where do we draw the line? It's fine for companies to "convince" others, but, yet it's not okay for a father guiding his daughter in what he thinks is right?

Mentork · Sep 19, 2008

Goldenboy219 said:
Your mistaking my position as that of disagreeing with child labor. I never said such nonsense.

Then I will redirect you to

"What if an eight year old wants to work as a prostitute?"

Metropolis said:
But, don't we see that everywhere? Companies are always trying to "convince" you that you NEED that product? For example, Restless Leg Syndrome. Is it serious? No. Is it a real problem? No. Did one commercial convince millions that they have it? Yes.

Would it be ok for the company that sells assisted suicide to advertise on TV?

Metropolis said:
So, where do we draw the line? It's fine for companies to "convince" others, but, yet it's not okay for a father guiding his daughter in what he thinks is right?

So, would it be ok for a father to have sex with his eight year old daughter if he has her "consent"? I mean, she can, after all, think for herself.

What if a father thinks his son is a failure and should kill himself? Would it be ok for him to drive him to the company that sells assisted suicide?

Metropolis · Sep 19, 2008

Would it be ok for the company that sells assisted suicide to advertise on TV?

Why should the company be restricted from advertising?

It if it presents in a decent manner and with facts, then, it's fine.

So, would it be ok for a father to have sex with his eight year old daughter if he has her "consent"? I mean, she can, after all, think for herself.

Consent and incest run on two different lines. In which, incest is horribly disgusting.

What if a father thinks his son is a failure and should kill himself? Would it be ok for him to drive him to the company that sells assisted suicide?

Does the kid need to walk in and go through with it?

Oh, wait. I know your next argument. The kid cannot return home unless he's dead and if he does, he will be beat on their walkway till he is dead. Right?

Mentork · Sep 19, 2008

Metropolis said:
Why should the company be restricted from advertising?
It if it presents in a decent manner and with facts, then, it's fine.

Umm, can someone help me out here? I'm not sure how to debate an opponent who thinks assisted suicide should be legal and thinks it's ok if a 8 year old becomes a prostitute...

Metropolis said:
Consent and incest run on two different lines. In which, incest is horribly disgusting.

Ah ha! I know you had morals somewhere within that twisted mind of yours!

So would it be ok if a 32 year old man who was not the girls father had a sexual relationship with a 8 year old girl? I mean, if she can think for herself...

Metropolis said:
Does the kid need to walk in and go through with it?

No, but he has that option.

Metropolis · Sep 19, 2008

So would it be ok if a 32 year old man who was not the girls father had a sexual relationship with a 8 year old girl? I mean, if she can think for herself...

Rofl. Again, that is pretty sick. But, who am I, or anyone, to control her feelings?

It's not that I don't have morals - I do view things as bad. Despite my arguments, child labor and working 13 hours a day in a hazardous mill is not all too cool, or 'morally right' - However, if they want to do it - I feel they should have the ability to do it.

More so, about liberty over principle. Touching the stove may be dangerous, but, if I want to do it - Let me. It's my decision. I'll handle the consequences.

Ethereal · Sep 19, 2008

Well, heroin is quite fun, now that you brought it up.

This is a subjective fallacy. What's "fun" for one person may be intolerable to another.

But, don't we see that everywhere? Companies are always trying to "convince" you that you NEED that product? For example, Restless Leg Syndrome. Is it serious? No. Is it a real problem? No. Did one commercial convince millions that they have it? Yes.

Your analogy is spurious at best. The products being advertised are subject to regulations whereas the drug dealer is not. The drug dealer is under no obligation to inform the child of the risks or illegality inherent in their transaction nor is the child capable of making that determination for themself.

For your premise to work you must establish (not claim) that children are capable of making informed decisions on their own and that we as a society do not have a moral obligation to safeguard children from coercion.

So, where do we draw the line? It's fine for companies to "convince" others, but, yet it's not okay for a father guiding his daughter in what he thinks is right?

So, just so we understand each other, you believe it should be legal for a father to "convince" his five year old daughter to whore themselves out on the streets? Or that a drug-dealer should be able to "convince" a five year old to try some herion? If so, you are certifiably ****ing insane.

Metropolis · Sep 19, 2008

So, just so we understand each other, you believe it should be legal for a father to "convince" his five year old daughter to whore themselves out on the streets? Or that a drug-dealer should be able to "convince" a five year old to try some herion? If so, you are certifiably ****ing insane.

If Drug dealers became legal businesses, and listed the risks to the potential buyers - What would you say?

Kushinator · Sep 19, 2008

Metropolis said:
If Drug dealers became legal businesses, and listed the risks to the potential buyers - What would you say?

What you are describing is extreme anarchy. The decision making mechanism is not fully developed in the brain until later years, although it is not entirely clear what the exact age is.

Allowing a child to do heroin at a young age is child abuse, end of story. There are no positive effects to doing the drug when you take out pain reduction. Your position is impossible to defend unless taken from an extreme anarchist point of view.

Cutting the Gordian Knot of GE Theory

Mentork

Mentork

Voluntary

Onion Eater

Well-known member

Onion Eater

Well-known member

Mentork

Ethereal

Mentork

Metropolis

Member

Mentork

Metropolis

Member

Onion Eater

Well-known member

Ethereal

Ethereal

Onion Eater

Well-known member

Mentork

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time

Metropolis

Member

Mentork

Metropolis

Member

Mentork

Metropolis

Member

Ethereal

Metropolis

Member

Kushinator

I'm not-low all the time