[mikema63]

no need to start getting angry, its bad for your health.

Seriously read the friggin post of mine first,

i did, i was explaining that if population (and thus the size of the economy) outstrips the reduction in use, then absolute numbers would go up while relative numbers go down.

If it was decreasing, thanks government.

correlation does not mean causation. neither of us can prove our point by saying such and such was happening therefore it must be the cause, without proof neither of us can prove our point this way.

Soviet Union and oh, good to see that one single place can't be named by you where child labor got eliminated by market only.

Amid a backward trend toward greater reliance on manual labor, thousands of children across Central Asia, some of them 12 years old or younger, will spend the next two months working in organized school brigades alongside adults in the cotton fields of Uzbekistan, Tadzhikistan, Turkmenia and Kirghizia.

http://articles.latimes.com/1985-10-09/news/mn-16743_1_cotton-fields

the soviet union was not a particularly great progressive wonder.

good to see that one single place can't be named by you where child labor got eliminated by market only.

ill go find that ancap wonderland for you sometime, in the mean time all examples are either not capitalistic and unindustrialized, or have child labor laws. the soviet union is not an example of a non-capitalistic country who eliminated child labor with laws.

Knowing is good, isn't it.

good to know, since it seems to mostly be in family farms we just need more corporate ones.

[fuser]

i did, i was explaining

Irrelevant, as given in that particular post of mine, efforts by government up till 1900 to combat child labor, making your original claim of child labor becoming marginal before government intervention wrong and that's only for US.

neither of us can prove our point by saying such and such was happening

I can, as this trend is actually universal, no government control and such places are infected with child labor while places which had/have government regulations are free from it.

the soviet union was not a particularly great progressive wonder.

Yes, it was, it eradicated child labor in 1922 before being industrialized and being a market economy, you asked for such an example and you got one, be happy.
Neither does that la times proves anything, a cold war propaganda article based on anecdotal evidences.

There is no evidence of large-scale independent activity by children in the labour market in the
USSR, except during the periods of social and economic upheaval associated with the revolution,
the civil war and the Second World War.

The Soviet State proclaimed, from the start, its intention to eradicate the exploitation of children.
In 1922, employment of children under the age of 16 was prohibited, although children aged
between 14 and 16 could still be employed in exceptional cases with the agreement of the Labour
Commissariat and the trade unions. Since 1956, legislation has allowed children of 15 years of age
to be employed in exceptional cases with the agreement of the enterprise concerned and of local
trade union committees. Additional legislation in 1974 stipulated the conditions under which
children over the age of 14 could work: no contraindications on the grounds of health, agreement
of one of the parents (or guardians) and agreement of the child’s educational institution and the
trade union of the enterprise concerned. In 1988, the minimum age for work was established as 14 years

Officially, child work could only take place if it was to prepare children for future employment, within the framework of education.

ill go find that ancap wonderland for you sometime,

I am not telling you to find an ancap land, don't put words in my mouth. Just an example where child labor vanished before government intervention as you yourself said it was marginal, remember.

the soviet union is not an example of a non-capitalistic country who eliminated child labor with laws.

What are you talking about, soviet union was capitalist? or you are really saying child labor was not abolished in SU by law?

Here, have some more information :

"In 1922, employment of children under the age of 16 was prohibited, although children aged between 14 and 16 could still be employed in exceptional cases with the agreement of the Labour Commissariat and the trade unions."

or have child labor laws.

That's exactly the point.

good to know, since it seems to mostly be in family farms we just need more corporate ones.

Irrelevant, someone asked an example of child labor in first world country and it was provided, you first tried to act as if it didn't existed and now I don't know what you really want to say.

[mikema63]

i didn't know it existed silly beans, i was making a joke about corporate farms since most of the child labor is on family ones.

Irrelevant, as given in that particular post of mine, efforts by government up till 1900 to combat child labor, making your original claim of child labor becoming marginal before government intervention wrong and that's only for US.

you did ask me why in percent of labor force remember

Neither does that la times proves anything, a cold war propaganda article based on anecdotal evidences.

very well ignore it if you wish, obviously nothing will stand between you and your belief that the soviet union was a shining example of the communism you believe in.

Svetlana Stephenson University of North London International Labour Office

i tried to look them up and i found the article you mentioned but couldn't find any information on them googles second link was to a political party as was the third. not sure what to think about their credibility any more than you seem to trust my sources.

I am not telling you to find an ancap land, don't put words in my mouth. Just an example where child labor vanished before government intervention as you yourself said it was marginal, remember.

no you aren't asking for it specifically but you seem to want an example of a market economy that has no regulations at all, which isn't particularly easy to find. child labor laws were going into effect in most advanced countries at around the same time from what i understand, seems like political theories spread around a bit and are in vogue at relatively the same time. perhaps there is one you know of that didn't pass child labor laws until much much later and didn't have a progressive influence while it was going through the entirety of its industrialization process without any laws or depressions that you will use to try to say was the actual cause?

What are you talking about, soviet union was capitalist? or you are really saying child labor was not abolished in SU by law?

they certainly abolished it by law, but drugs are also abolished by law and people still take drugs.

That's exactly the point.

to convince you i seem to need an economically advanced country that doesn't have any leftists at all, since child labor laws are pretty easy to pass relatively speaking. may i ask for a communist country that didn't kill people or go to war to prove that there can be a peaceful communist country?

you seem to only be willing to accept the possibility of a workable theoretical system that has never existed (much like left anarchism, or as many have said communism) without a real life working example. i would love to pull a country out of my back pocket that is both economically advanced and doesn't have any labor laws so that we could look at its statistics, as im sure you would love a communist country that didn't suffer from chronic shortages and political prisons. unfortunately we must argue both our ideologies theoretically given the limited range of actual examples of the type of system we would like to live under.

we should build some islands next to each other to test our two systems against each other, if we ever get the opportunity im sure we will both look at the numbers and, depending what they are, either declare victory or give in (ah who am i kidding we would look for excuses )

[fuser]

you did ask me why in percent of labor force remember

No, I didn't, I asked you to show as per your original claim that child labor was marginalized before government intervention, nothing less, nothing more.

very well ignore it if you wish, obviously nothing will stand between you and your belief that the soviet union was a shining example of the communism you believe in.

Don't be dramatic, I have told you why I won't believe a news article especially written during cold war era, which cites no sources at all, if anyone is doing "blind believing", here that would be you on that article.

ot sure what to think about their credibility any more than you seem to trust my sources.

Only that your source is just a news article which provides no source for the given information whereas my source have underlined around 10 sources including primary ones. So, once again until you are just a blind believer (Soviet Union, oh the horror ), there's no reason to discard that.

no you aren't asking for it specifically

I was asking exactly and specifically that with clear meanings. I am not sure are you trying to obfuscate this whole little debate of ours.

but you seem to want an example of a market economy that has no regulations at all, which isn't particularly easy to find

No, I want you to show one example where child labor was abolished before government's intervention (as per your claim only.) And of course market economy has existed without child labor laws and guess what during that period child labor was thriving.

they certainly abolished it by law, but drugs are also abolished by law and people still take drugs.

Irrelevant, why are you now trying to obfuscate everything, you originally said

the soviet union is not an example of a non-capitalistic country who eliminated child labor with laws."

Accepting that you were wrong won't hurt. Also exception doesn't becomes a rule. 100% elimination of child labor has been achieved no where but systematic and unregulated use of child labor in its whole was of course abolished.

to convince you i seem to need an economically advanced country that doesn't have any leftists at all, since child labor laws are pretty easy to pass relatively speaking

Another attempt of obfuscation, I have already told as clearly as I can, What I am asking, putting words in my mouth or trying to interpret it as something completely different won't change anything. But, I will take your answer as no, you could have said that btw.

may i ask for a communist country that didn't kill people or go to war to prove that there can be a peaceful communist country?

Of course, but that's irrelevant to this debate but my question is not, hence this comparison is a fail.

i would love to pull a country out of my back pocket that is both economically advanced and doesn't have any labor laws

Regardless that such country of course can't exist, I will repeat myself for the last time, I am asking only what you claimed and sorry but you are failure in this regard. UK had over 70 years of industrial revolution before first act against child labor got passed, so see what I am asking was child labor declining/becoming marginal in that period? Many countries had market economy for years without any child labor laws, why don't you find me one single country among them where child labor was marginalized (your claim) before government jumped in instead of attempts at obfuscation.

you would love a communist country that didn't suffer from chronic shortages and political prisons

No, I won't instead I will love to see thriving political prisons.

we should build some islands next to each other

I will bring nukes, your counter revolutionary island is doomed.

[mikema63]

No, I didn't, I asked you to show as per your original claim that child labor was marginalized before government intervention, nothing less, nothing more

thats not the question i was answering with that response, this is

why are you using percentage of labor force? what about sheer numbers?

this thing is starting to drag on to the point where we are mixing who is answering what where.

Don't be dramatic, I have told you why I won't believe a news article especially written during cold war era, which cites no sources at all, if anyone is doing "blind believing", here that would be you on that article.

the USSR wasn't generaly for information sharing as far as i know, i cant find the entire organization that posted your source.

http://www.soros.org/initiatives/cep/events/child-labor-20110120

this one also mentions it but i dont know what this organization is about, the open society foundations?

I was asking exactly and specifically that with clear meanings. I am not sure are you trying to obfuscate this whole little debate of ours.

i was saying that you hadn't asked for an ancap society, i was being hyperbolic with it.

No, I want you to show one example where child labor was abolished before government's intervention (as per your claim only.) And of course market economy has existed without child labor laws and guess what during that period child labor was thriving.

as im sure you know as the economy progress, and standard of living goes up (which you dont seem to think would happen anyway without government) child labor goes down, so child labor should go down towards the end of the industrialization process.

also im finding it incredible difficult to find statistics at all, anywhere, least of all before 1900, if you have any links to raw stats that you would care to share that would be nice of you.

Irrelevant, why are you now trying to obfuscate everything, you originally said

im not, im pointing out that just because the USSR wrote down that it wouldn't happen doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. the USSR wasn't known for its absolute honesty.

Accepting that you were wrong won't hurt. Also exception doesn't becomes a rule. 100% elimination of child labor has been achieved no where but systematic and unregulated use of child labor in its whole was of course abolished.

will you let me claim that if we found a few thousand children working in an advanced capitalist economy without regulation? you realize that there is likely no system that will every actually abolish child labor 100% either by government law or natural forces?

Another attempt of obfuscation, I have already told as clearly as I can, What I am asking, putting words in my mouth or trying to interpret it as something completely different won't change anything. But, I will take your answer as no, you could have said that btw.

every capitalistic country that i can think of has child labor laws, so no i cant think of any without child labor laws, if you have one let me know.

Of course, but that's irrelevant to this debate but my question is not, hence this comparison is a fail.

im pointing out that the free market, a totally unregulated free market, has never existed, much like communism there isn't much real world example to use. your demand for a real world example of an advanced economy with no child labor regulations is beyond my powers as all advanced economies passed them during the progressive era.

Regardless that such country of course can't exist,

no your country cant exist!

UK had over 70 years of industrial revolution before first act against child labor got passed, so see what I am asking was child labor declining/becoming marginal in that period? Many countries had market economy for years without any child labor laws, why don't you find me one single country among them where child labor was marginalized (your claim) before government jumped in instead of attempts at obfuscation.

i tried to find numbers for the UK i really did

as for the US you have said that you dont believe it was capitalism it was just progressives passing laws before i have numbers to even use. i tried to find stats on a state without any laws to convince you, but alas to no avail.

i was speaking in a different sense of marginalized than you are, i am saying that the point where they would have all just died had passed and people were able to survive the shock, not to mention that many families still had their children working for them on a farm or paper route or at their business.

instead of attempts at obfuscation

stop that, im honestly not trying to obfuscate anything, i honestly cant find the numbers you demand, if you have some share but i cant give you what you want from me.

No, I won't instead I will love to see thriving political prisons.

how.....progressive

I will bring nukes, your counter revolutionary island is doomed.

then ill never learn my lesson.

be cool man

[Eran]

This isn't a brilliant example given the cultural context: very much a hierarchical society with Hindus divided into castes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, Sudras and finally Harijans ('untouchables' because they work with leather and the cow is sacrosanct in Hinduism).

It would not be socially acceptable for higher ranking castes to send their children into labour, even the poorer Kshatriyas would not (to my knowledge at least) so the very types of people who would force their children to work would not simply fo the sake of status.

Is anybody aware of any country in the world in which middle-class parents send their children to work? (and, in the context of this discussion, I mean the kind of work that people believe ought to be prohibited by law).

Either way, every State in history has had some method of keeping the plebs appeased and not civically revolting, whether it has been wine and bread, or some other indirect way such as land reforms, military recruitment, stolen loot fom war conquests, public construction (roads, technology, plumbing - the very kind for which Rome was famous for).

Indeed when the state obviously oppresses the "plebs", it generally needs to justify its existence. But providing people with services worth a small fraction of the taxes already collected from them is hardly "income redistribution". As far as I know, such redistribution was very uncommon before the 19th century.

Oh and whatever you may say about the voluntary sector up until the 20th Century (or there abouts) the condition of the working class dramtically surged after the introduction of the welfare state (not to confuse cause and correlation but the theoretical pinnings are strong too, especially when you combine them with modern mainstream macroeconomics, in particular the circular flow model of the economy).

No, the conditions surged after increased productivity generated by the entrepreneurs of the Industrial Revolution. Welfare state was a result rather than cause of increased prosperity.

There you go.

So the Indian Constitution, for whatever that's worth, calls for compulsory education to children 6-14. Compulsory education is routinely translated to prohibition on full-time employment.

India may be more pragmatic than Western nations. In most of those, child labour is heavily regulated well beyond the hazard of the occupation.

It doesn't changes the fact that market always needed and got child labor, even in these days and even in prosperous countries, the only difference is market is fulfilling that through third world countries instead of in one's own country.

The market makes use of the most efficient and productive labour available. Children of prosperous families are not available to work, whether the "market" wants them or not. Prosperity, not government regulation, is the key. Being Indian, you can easily attest to that - government regulations are futile at preventing child labour. Prosperity, on the other hand, virtually eliminates it.

Yes, to both. Mostly in small family businesses and agriculture.

In conditions you find undesirable and which you would like to see prohibited?

Officially, child work could only take place if it was to prepare children for future employment, within the framework of education.

Officially, all children in India go to school. Officially, freedom of speech was guaranteed in the Soviet Union. So?


Bottom line, fuser, child labour laws either emerge or are seriously enforced only when the country is sufficiently prosperous. Wherever you find poverty, you'll find child labour. Wherever you find prosperity, you won't.

You won't find significant exceptions to that pattern.

You suggest that government regulation should be credited with elimination of child labour. But government regulation cannot be effectively enforced before the population is sufficiently wealthy. India is an excellent example of that, and I am sure not the only one.

[fuser]

thats not the question i was answering with that response, this is

Because you didn't answered the original question, and my response was result of that. But whatever, my question from beginning is this only
"show as per your original claim that child labor was marginalized before government intervention, nothing less, nothing more"

i cant find the entire organization that posted your source.

Its not about the organization but the sources that were presented in that report(You did find that report, right?)

this one also mentions it

Without any source.

the USSR wasn't known for its absolute honesty.

Who is? This isn't a fairy tale, nations act because of their self interest and not ought of honesty, irrespective of that nation being communist (Soviet Union) or capitalist (USA)

will you let me claim that if we found a few thousand children working in an advanced capitalist economy without regulation?

Exceptions are not rule and then note the word "systematic" and "unregulated" The exceptions that existed in SU were neither systematic nor unregulated.

every capitalistic country that i can think of has child labor laws

Of course, that is how we got rid of it.

your demand for a real world example of an advanced economy with no child labor regulations is beyond my powers

I am not demanding specifically for an advanced economy, but any economy where child labor was marginalized before Government intervention (and this is your claim only), and of course you can't find such example and that's my point.

i cant give you what you want from me.

Proof your own assertion and I am not giving you anything, you claimed something and you will have to prove that.

how.....progressive

Political prisons is not an anathema for a progressive society.

Compulsory education is routinely translated to prohibition on full-time employment.

I don't care what in your petty opinion it leads to beside that's the point stop children working from a tender age, unless they complete their basic education at least (making them far more productive for society). A 6-14 aged children capable of working for a firm is a very very rare thing, I don't want to sabotage entire generation of kids' future for a rarity.

The market makes use of the most efficient and productive labour available.

Child labor was not used for being more productive or efficient but because it was cheap.

Being Indian, you can easily attest to that - government regulations are futile at preventing child labour.

on the contrary Government regulation is very efficient at it. Region with a strong government not only ensures basic rights of adults in the family (minimum wage, etc) reducing the burden on child, providing free education to child etc while region with an inefficient government leads into market exploiting adults and child labor both.

In conditions you find undesirable and which you would like to see prohibited?

Yes.

Officially, all children in India go to school. Officially, freedom of speech was guaranteed in the Soviet Union. So?

Eran, stick to the point rather than dancing around it, unless you can find counter examples for my point, the above babble is irrelevant.

Bottom line, fuser, child labour laws either emerge or are seriously enforced only when the country is sufficiently prosperous.

India was prosperous in 1947 or Soviet Union in 1922?
Damn it I am giving examples again and again proving my points, why its being too hard for you to provide any example from your side.

But government regulation cannot be effectively enforced before the population is sufficiently wealthy. India is an excellent example of that

No it isn't, simply repeating it won't make it so, rather the point is that only government regulations will make sure that wealth is distributed more fairly to different strata of society.

[Nunt]

Child labor was not used for being more productive or efficient but because it was cheap.

Strange that you can talk about efficiency without including relevants costs.

[Eran]

A 6-14 aged children capable of working for a firm is a very very rare thing, I don't want to sabotage entire generation of kids' future for a rarity.

You are probably right, in which case you have nothing to worry about. If children are not capable of working, why would anybody pay them? Why do we need prohibition then?

Child labor was not used for being more productive or efficient but because it was cheap.

That's precisely what "efficient" means in an economic context - getting most value per unit of cost.

Region with a strong government not only ensures basic rights of adults in the family (minimum wage, etc) reducing the burden on child, providing free education to child etc while region with an inefficient government leads into market exploiting adults and child labor both.

In which Indian region has government been able to ensure those basic rights?

Damn it I am giving examples again and again proving my points, why its being too hard for you to provide any example from your side.

You have not given a single example of government eliminating child labour without the prosperity to support it, nor have you given a single example of a prosperous society in which child labour is common. By contrast, we have seen that mere government decrees are helpless to remove child labour when poverty makes it attractive.

[fuser]

If children are not capable of working

relative to adults, of course.

why would anybody pay them? Why do we need prohibition then?

You know the answer, because market wants "cheap" children to work for them instead of thinking long term for their education and resultant increase in productive. aka market is just an inefficient institution unless regulated by government.

That's precisely what "efficient" means in an economic context - getting most value per unit of cost.

Ah, yes my bad, and that's the point why market was/is unable to eliminate child labor and government had to intervene.

In which Indian region has government been able to ensure those basic rights?

Arunachal Pradesh has 0.1% of child laborer while Andhra Prades has10.8% and guess what Andhra is far more rich and prosperous than Arunachal. Also, not that India can do it, after all she's traveling to the neoliberal path where she had to listen to market and neither she have third world countries to exploit.

You have not given a single example of government eliminating child labour without the prosperity

Good to see, that you have retorted simply to lying now. Go back and read this entire thread, btw example of soviet union has already been provided in this case.

nor have you given a single example of a prosperous society in which child labour is common

Nice, now mixing lying with obfuscation, first you asked simply name a prosperous society with child labor and I have already given that 'USA' in agricultural sector, not to mention the export of child labor to third world (without a third world to exploit, of course child labor would had been more common.),now carefully adding the word 'common' is just an attempt of obfuscation.
Now, how about you give some examples for your assertions, you have dodging them for too long now.

By contrast, we have seen that mere government decrees are helpless to remove child labour

No, we have seen no such thing. You repetition is getting irritating, start proving something instead of repetitions.

[Rei Murasame]

I almost forgot to come back to this. I'll try to give an answer earlier than 'Bismark'.

However, groups (both whole ethnic groups and subsets thereof) have found non-government ways of expressing their mutual care and desire to help each other for centuries. In fact, until the early 20th century, enforced transfer payments and income distributions were the exception globally.

Empress Jito of Japan (41st ruler) was running a system based around rule of law and a centralisation of power with pseudo-progressive taxation, in 686 CE. In 686 CE, a person could not permanently own a field, because they would take a census and adjust the land-ownership every six years to ensure that everyone over the age of six did have a stake in the profit from the land.

Another example is that some of the middle eastern rulers apparently had welfare states with transfer payments that were funded by taxation in the medieval period. And there are just a lot of other examples, I'm basically surprised that you claimed they were the exception.

Rei,
I think you are confusing cause and effect.

You seem to suggest that government action that enforces certain inter-group transfers are both demanded by and required for the ongoing preservation of group identity.

In fact, it is existing group identity which allows and even requires government to do so. Members of our society have come to expect government to use force to express shared values and preferences. That much is true.

It would be extremely difficult to disentangle them.

But then would you acknowledge that you are actually 'at war' with the very idea of group identity itself? That basically in order to make people act as you would like them to act, you'd have to tell them a narrative of history that somehow does not foster a shared identity, a narrative that is somehow able to produce and re-produce an individualist mentality over and over again across generations?

[Eran]

You know the answer, because market wants "cheap" children to work for them instead of thinking long term for their education and resultant increase in productive.

It is not the job of the market to be thinking about the children's long term needs. It is their parents' job. Parents all over the world (and very obviously so in India) think about the welfare of their children, and go to significant sacrifices to allow them to study. If the parents of a particular child decided to send the child to work, that suggests that the benefits of education are insufficient to overcome to cost, both out-of-pocket and in lost earnings.

As you criticize market processes, always keep in mind that a market transaction involves two willing adults, not just one.

Arunachal Pradesh has 0.1% of child laborer while Andhra Prades has10.8%

That seems highly unlikely. My suspicion is that official statistics is heavily biased. Do you have a reference?

Nice, now mixing lying with obfuscation

I do what I can :-)

The children working in the American agricultural sector are typically immigrants. Neither they nor their families are prosperous. Decisions such as whether to send one's child to work are not made at the national level. They are made at the family level. The relevant prosperity is, consequently, at the family level, not the national level.

No, we have seen no such thing.

I am confused. You quoted the Constitution of India which clearly protects children from exploitation. Yet you yourself acknowledge that child labour is rampant in India. Isn't that proof that "mere government decrees are helpless..." as I stated?

Empress Jito of Japan (41st ruler) was running a system based around rule of law and a centralisation of power with pseudo-progressive taxation, in 686 CE. In 686 CE, a person could not permanently own a field, because they would take a census and adjust the land-ownership every six years to ensure that everyone over the age of six did have a stake in the profit from the land.

Wikipedia suggests that Empress Jito ruled for only 11 years. Even it the system you describe actually existed in practice (as opposed to propaganda documents), it would still very much represent an exception.

Again, my point was "enforced transfer payments and income distributions were the exception globally". Isolated anecdotes do not contradict that statement.

But then would you acknowledge that you are actually 'at war' with the very idea of group identity itself?

Not at all! I am at war with groups (whether national, ethnic, professional or otherwise) using force to advance their interests. I have absolutely no issue with group identity expressed non-violently.

A good example would be most of the Jewish history of the past few centuries. Jews maintained strong group identity without predominantly resorting to violence. The same holds with many other immigrant groups around the world, including Malay Chinese, German Russians and Indian Africans.

That basically in order to make people act as you would like them to act, you'd have to tell them a narrative of history that somehow does not foster a shared identity, a narrative that is somehow able to produce and re-produce an individualist mentality over and over again across generations?

Rei, I could care less how people act (as long as they don't use force against others!), nor am I interested in telling any historic narratives. In fact, without government, I would expect ethnic/national group ties to strengthen rather than loosen, as people have to start relying on each other, rather than on their government, for help.

[Rei Murasame]

Wikipedia suggests that Empress Jito ruled for only 11 years.

Well it was under her administration that it was started, and then it just continued to perpetuate itself. Until the feudal era began and that form of human organisation then ended. This is mainstream history, Chinese states also had a variant of the same behaviour as well.

Again, my point was "enforced transfer payments and income distributions were the exception globally". Isolated anecdotes do not contradict that statement.

Would you really like me to go and start listing all societies that have had them?

Not at all! I am at war with groups (whether national, ethnic, professional or otherwise) using force to advance their interests. I have absolutely no issue with group identity expressed non-violently.

But you know that it will not remain non-violent, you said so yourself.

A good example would be most of the Jewish history of the past few centuries. Jews maintained strong group identity without predominantly resorting to violence.

Yes, something which is quite easy when you do not have a state and are essentially living inside someone else's state!

Jews maintained strong group identity without predominantly resorting to violence.

And how has that worked out now that they finally are on their own again and not under European umbrellas?

Rei, I could care less how people act (as long as they don't use force against others!), nor am I interested in telling any historic narratives. In fact, without government, I would expect ethnic/national group ties to strengthen rather than loosen, as people have to start relying on each other, rather than on their government, for help.

Whereupon they would then form a government. You yourself even said so when you said: "it is existing group identity which allows and even requires government to do so".

Which is why I asked the question about social engineering. Or does this mean that you are not anticipating that there is any way for agorism to ever happen? If you aren't willing to try to alter their perception of life and their history, then by your own admission the use of force will in practice continue to be a favoured tool, won't it?

[Eran]

But you know that it will not remain non-violent, you said so yourself.

Where did I ever say that?

Yes, something which is quite easy when you do not have a state and are essentially living inside someone else's state!

Well, I am proposing a society in which nobody has a state, and, consequently, any group would find it quite easy to maintain its identity.

And how has that worked out now that they finally are on their own again and not under European umbrellas?

Not great. Further proof that governments corrupt.

Whereupon they would then form a government. You yourself even said so when you said: "it is existing group identity which allows and even requires government to do so".

Whether group identity results in a government being formed depends on other elements of political culture. Clearly today that would be the case (with Israel being but one example). As I pointed elsewhere, a stable anarchy can exist, but requires certain shared political-cultural values. The same as with a stable democracy.

To summarize, group identity + statist attitudes will indeed lead to the formation of a national government. But group identity + non-statist attitudes would allow the group to continue to exist without forming a government.

My solution requires education to change people's political attitudes. No doubt about that. But I don't think that shift requires loosening of group ties. If anything, informal groups will become more important without government safety net.

[Rei Murasame]

To summarize, group identity + statist attitudes will indeed lead to the formation of a national government. But group identity + non-statist attitudes would allow the group to continue to exist without forming a government.

But that's my question then, how will you get the 'non-statist attitudes' to be fostered without altering the telling of their history?

[fuser]

It is not the job of the market to be thinking about the children's long term needs

Exactly and that's why market fails and has failed in eliminating child labor and instead was done by government. The inefficiency of market becomes more demonstrable by your above statement, i.e. inability to think for long term even though that could lead to more productivity (in this case kids with education)

If the parents of a particular child decided to send the child to work, that suggests that the benefits of education are insufficient to overcome to cost

Because of the market, and by government taking responsibility of child's education eliminates that hindrance, also its exactly because of non regulations that a family had to send her kids to work. for example 'very low wages' for adults in an unregulated market.

That seems highly unlikely.

Anything that doesn't matches up with pre conceived notion of your world is unlikely, libertarianism has basically become a religion for you, so its not surprising.

Do you have a reference?

source

The children working in the American agricultural sector are typically immigrants. Neither they nor their families are prosperous.

You asked about prosperous society and not family, remember. Also, they are indeed prosperous compared to third world peasants, of course.

Decisions such as whether to send one's child to work are not made at the national level.

By law they are allowed to work and this law acts at a national level.

Isn't that proof that "mere government decrees are helpless..." as I stated?

Of course, mere decrees are helpless, we need a strong government which can actually enforce its will. And its not just about child labor, inefficiency of Indian Government is rampant in many sectors of life.

[Daktoria]

But that's my question then, how will you get the 'non-statist attitudes' to be fostered without altering the telling of their history?

Isn't that the whole point?

States exist because history is altered. Without lies, there's no need for paranoia.

[Eran]

But that's my question then, how will you get the 'non-statist attitudes' to be fostered without altering the telling of their history?

I would do that by telling the truth about their history. Specifically showing how markets are behind prosperity, while government is oppressive and exploitative.

How did attitudes about state involvement in religion change?

Because of the market, and by government taking responsibility of child's education eliminates that hindrance, also its exactly because of non regulations that a family had to send her kids to work.

It isn't a hindrance. I was describing a situation in which, in the loving parents' judgement, sending the child to work is desirable. Government would find it hard to enforce a decree against such decision. But even if they could, what makes you think government knows better than the parents? Or has the child's best interests at heart?

for example 'very low wages' for adults in an unregulated market.

I am not sure how this is relevant. But very low wages are better than no wages at all.

source

Seriously? Do you really believe, for example, that only 0.3% of children in Delhi work? Including slum children? Anyway, I am grateful for the source, but maintain my doubts. Further, the source contains no indication that enforcement of government rules is in any way tied to the difference in statistics. Is that your assertion? Is it supported by additional sources, or just a guess?

You asked about prosperous society and not family, remember.

That's fair. I should have been more accurate. Prosperous families don't tend to send their children to work. The best way to combat child labour is to help all families become prosperous. Not to force those poor families who need their children's income to do without, or to drive their children's labour underground.

And its not just about child labor, inefficiency of Indian Government is rampant in many sectors of life.

No doubt. But if the Indian Government is so bad, why on Earth would you want to give it more power?

[fuser]

Government would find it hard to enforce a decree against such decision.

Nothing happens in isolation, If government can enforce labor laws for adults, if it can provide basic necessities like health care and eduction, it can easily enforce a decree against child labor. Stop thinking in single dimension.

Or has the child's best interests at heart

I don't care about child's(individually) best interest, they are more productive with an education instead in a coal mine.

I am not sure how this is relevant

Its relevant because government enforced wages for a worker enforces that, that said worker will be in a much better state such that, need to send his kid to work will be eliminated.

But very low wages are better than no wages at all.

Of course, but who is working without any wage? what are you talking about?

Do you really believe, for example, that only 0.3% of children in Delhi work?

Please read carefully next time, the 0.3% in here means Percentage share of Child labor in the State.

hat enforcement of government rules is in any way tied to the difference in statistics.

It never meant to show that, but I brought it up because you claimed that prosperous areas have less child laborers but on the contrary above data shows, Industrialized and prosperous state of India has one of the largest share of child laborers while comparatively much poorer state have less child labors.

The best way to combat child labour is to help all families become prosperous.

which is impossible without government regulations.

Not to force those poor families who need their children's income to do without

"The median hourly income as of May 2004 was $7.70 for farmworkers planting, growing and harvesting crops, and $8.31 for farmworkers tending to animals" (source : wikipedia)
By the most of the world's standard, they surely are not poor.

[Rei Murasame]

Isn't that the whole point? States exist because history is altered. Without lies, there's no need for paranoia.

I would do that by telling the truth about their history. Specifically showing how markets are behind prosperity, while government is oppressive and exploitative.

That's well-said, that is the answer I have been fishing for the whole time. I was wondering if you'd ever acknowledge it.

Your task then - a task which I oppose utterly of course - is the greatest task of all, to convince people to discard not just a religion or ideology, but everything that makes them who they are, always and at all times, no matter what that identity may be. Since any collective identity has a stupendous tendency to morph into force, right?

That is a pretty uphill battle, yes; a battle, and perhaps ironically, it is the American liberal state and the sort of society that they are re-producing, that has come the closest in the whole world to aggressively hammering that behaviour out of people's heads and hammering liberal behaviour into it. But surely you both agree that the American liberal state is a far cry from the agorist dream that you both hold so dear.

Read at least the abstracts of both the cultural-neuro PDFs I embedded into this post.