OWS and why I disagree.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pencils, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    The issue I've always had with Adhoc's system isn't the system itself, but with the people that this system would effect.

    First I can understand why Adhoc is bitter. I'll spare the details but I can't blame him nor can I say anything mean/insulting about his POV/beliefs.

    However, to say a governmental system will somehow change how humans will treat other humans is absurd, possibly naive.

    Ever since we evolved from monkeys/clams/pond slime/soap scum/created, we have been at each others throats. Humans are generally just as territorial as monkeys/cats/dogs/etc. So, somewhere between [your explanation of how humans came to be here] and now, people have been in bloody, violent pissing matches over territories/belief systems/resources/some bullshit excuse here.

    Changing/eradicating a government system won't change that immutable fact. All it will do is change how said pissing match gets played out and how innocent people get fucked over because of it.

    So, lets play make believe and say that tomorrow Ad's system was put down. What would happen?

    First: People wouldn't know what to do. Everything that they were use to is gone now. This would lead to confusion and perhaps panic. Now, when I say "Panic" I don't mean "they go ape shit" I mean "What do I do? What is the next step?" If people are not familiar with this system, they won't know what to do. So, there will be confusion and whether people go postal or get naked and have wild clusterfucks is up to interpretation.

    Secondly: Those who have power will fight to stay in power. I highly doubt things like the military or police would just go "Ok we are going home now and fuck". What I do see happening is Washington DC trying to still stay in power. I see people trying to topple them. More importantly: I see people fighting and dying trying to grab power and control. From the Government all the way down to the local street thugs. In this wake: MANY people, who are still confused about what the fuck is going on, get killed in the crossfire.

    Finally: In the wake of all this fight for power, many more die because of the lack of essential services like hospitals, sanitation, electricity, road care, etc. Why? Nobody is getting paid for doing it. If they do get paid, it isn't worth the time/money/effort.

    So this idea of Ad's could cost exponentially more lives than what is currently in place. It's not the system that would cause it, it would be people being opportunistic people.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. Anonymous Member

    I get the impression he's been fucked by the government in the past; I imagine if that was me I'd be bitter with them too.

    Jokes about moving to Somalia aside, there are many countries in the world where 'small government' - really small government - is a reality.

    In many countries, income tax cannot be collected at all - the only taxation is import/export tax, because that's relatively easy to police.

    If one dislikes the government in the nation where one lives, one really does have the opportunity to vote with ones feet (and one's capital). If you own any property at all in the USA, this would make you a fairly rich person by the standards of a typical 'really small government' (i.e. third world) country. Of course, you run the risk of becoming old and infirm in a country where there's no state support for the old/infirm. So better make sure your health insurance is paid-up.
  3. adhocrat Member

    Lol at people who've never met me saying i'm bitter. Come down and spend a day with me then tell me that to my face. Even you will see the joke.

    But i think what he is referring to is how I know that the social contract is utter nonsense.

    Paro, the basic mistake in your post is that while governments won't change human nature they will absolutely affect human behavior. That is what incentives do.

    Greta, since you implicitly accepted my definition of 'anarchy' then decided to do equivocation on the term, I say go fix your logical fallacy. You are very good at committing them, Not so good at picking them out. If you can't figure it out, I will help. But I will not play these stupid games with you. The very first thing I did was define terms. If you don't accept them, don't wait for 10 days to tell me. That is wasting my time and yours. Unless, of course it is deliberate strategy in which case...
  4. Yes, you did define terms, but those terms were not realistic at all. You can pick your opinion, but you can't pick your facts or reality. You'd have to be either a Scientologist or another moonbat to believe otherwise. It is a simple, demonstrated fact that your preferred form of society would devolve into Somalian suffering. I like being able to run a whole house air conditioner, refrigerator, television, and computer for the same price Somalians pay for the energy to run a couple of light bulbs. I like having a government that prevents my employer from treating me like a slave. I like a society where the strong cannot completely prey on the weak. I don't give two shits about your justifications or your ideology. I care only for the end results of your or any beliefs, and in the case of anarcho-capitalism, those end results are hellish suffering. For what little it's worth, I think anarcho-syndicalists like Noam Chomsky and the Wobblies are assholes as well.
  5. Anonymous Member

    Adhocrat, you seem to despise the strong, powerful and morally challenged having control over the weak, powerless and moral, yet the society you seem to propose as a viable substitution would unquestionably lead to that scenario!
    • Agree Agree x 2
  6. I mentioned anarcho-syndicalists, and the problems with that system, while different, would have the same end result. Before I get into the reasons, I just have to get this off my chest: FUCK THEM!!! Thank you. At its core, it is a pure, direct democracy, and it opposes wages of any type, considering it, and by extension money, a form of slavery. What happens if the majority decide some minority should not have rights? What happens if one trade union decides they want to take another's goods and/or land by force? Without trade, how does a person from one trade union obtain goods and services, including the education needed for medical skills and other vital needs, from another? I can see this working on a small, isolated island, at least for a while, but as a means for a new society, it would become a living hell.
  7. Anonymous Member

    What about my orphan?

  8. Anonymous Member

    Adhocrat would be happy so...........FUCK EM!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. adhocrat Member

    Greta, I want to thank you for letting me know how important this is to you. The fact you are spending this much time 'talking' to me tells me I have hit a nerve with you and the others.

    You can see what anonymous has been doing and you recognize the validity of my position.
    I can tell when I hit a nerve, the discussion goes from condescension to outright anger. That's when you stop asking snarky questions and start calling me names.

    So Greta, you've been wasting our time. This has been about the concept of anarchy.

    Since you can't see that you live, for the most part, a life of anarchy, I see you as not having too much insight into your own life.

    You already live most of your life anarchically. I want to extend that anarchy to the next step.

    And to the poster who sees my positions as leading to bad results, I will say that YOUR positions have destroyed the value of the dollar, led to World Wars, to the Cold War, so I think maybe you are not seeing the problem the same way I am.
    In truth, I see no evidence that any of you could state my position accurately, which tells me that any objections you have don't amount to anything. You talk about child labor of the 19th century in way that tell me you REALLY don't understand the concept of opportunity costs.

    That makes you ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed...
    So, go learn how opportunity costs impact child labor. (ask, what would the child be doing if he weren't slaving away in the factory) Then, when you can give me a one paragraph explanation, then we can talk about it. Otherwise, you are speaking from massive ignorance and you are wasting my time.
  10. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    My apologies. I meant that I understand why you have these objections or why you disagree with what is going on.

    There isn't any argument that Governments can't change human behavior. There isn't any doubt that incentives motivate people.

    My issue, or concern more like, is the transition period and what follows. What I described is a possible, not a definite, possibility.

    People in the US is in this "Me! Me! Me!" mode where nothing is their fault. So, for them to suddenly wake up and have it gone would create chaos in their life. Whether it is good or bad would vary and remain to be scene. However, I have little doubt that if this idea was attempted, all it'd do is create a massive power grab. In the wake, create loss of life. How many would be hard to say but one life is one too many.

    Maybe your system will work though and my concerns/issues are baseless. It is hard to tell since this system hasn't been tried before out in the wild.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. anonymous612 Member

    Adhocrat, I thought you said you were bawwquitting this conversation.
    • Like Like x 2
  12. adhocrat Member

    ??? I did? I think I said I was tired of stupid questions and rude people. Paro is not asking stupid questions and he doesn't insult me just 'cause he can. I also said i want evidence that you understand the basic concept of opportunity costs. So far, I've seen no evidence you understand the concept. To discuss economics with someone who doesn't understand that basic concept is to waste my time. So if not wanting to have my time wasted is bawwquitting, then so be it.

    And Paro, understand that my job (self motivated) is to get these ideas out there. the dollar will collapse and when it does I want people to understand why, so they can avoid the problem in the future. The thing is, this same lesson was learned in the 19th century and then forgotten.

    There is no intention to impose this system from on high. I am not expecting some government to suddenly say "OMG, we've been bad, let's change it."

    In 1820 abolitionists called for the abolition of slavery and people couldn't think about how society would look. "Who will pick the cotton?"
    can you imagine trying to explain to that person, even in 1859, that "Well, right today, in Pennsylvania, some guy named Drake just discovered oil. And in another 20 years a guy in Germany will invent the IC engine, while McCormack in the midwest will take these ideas, put them together and create the harvester?"

    So when people ask "how will you deal with this" or that problem, the only honest answer is "I don't know. Ask again in a year and some entrepreneur will have a solution."

    The people who crossed the country in wagons outpaced the government and brought their own dispute resolution with them. Nothing inherently od about that. A stable society is one in which the rules are simple and easy to follow.

    The laws of civilization are simple. Don't hit me, Don't Steal my stuff. When people have disputes they agree to dispute resolution.
    The fact that international trade has occurred all through history is evidence that governments are not needed for trade, which is all that an economy is, trade. It is prima facie evidence of people creating spontaneous order without it being imposed externally.

    So, I figure that in 100 years or so, with enough change in child rearing, education and the lack of the indoctrination children get now, then we will see changes occur naturally in government. I want to put the idea of freedom out there.
  13. anonymous612 Member

    You are more delusional with less of a grip on reality than some Scientologists I know.

    See red.
    Please. Wander the fuck off. Preferably into traffic.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. Anonymous Member

    Here we go........I'm bettr edjumacated than wot you are.....time!

    How original adhocrat!
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Because I rather enjoy having these discussions, even if I have some doubts or disagreements.

    I have not heard an insult from you, I shall not insult you without merit.

    Got to answer this shortly:

    My concern is what people will do with this change. I can't really say because, like you, I don't know. I don't think people would understand what or how to do this system. I can't say definitively what people would do, but basically: People hate change but people can do unexpected things as well.

    So with that, it is hard to tell how people would react in the situations you are describing. I just think that some would go for a massive power grab and underwhelm those who'd really want those changes to work. Again, without empirical data to support who'd do what, it is hard to say.
  16. I agree. Ignorance can be fixed, but you seem determined to avoid resolving your own. You are an idealist. That is the nature of libertarians and other anarchists such as yourself. However, your ideology completely ignores the consequences of your beliefs becoming the basis of a society. From a Kantian perspective, your beliefs may be considered moral. However, from a consequentialist and pragmatist perspective, it utterly fails. Try as you might, you cannot change facts and history to match your world view. You cannot lie your way to convince people your beliefs based on falsehoods are true. It was governments that closed the workhouses, ended climbing boys as chimney sweeps, removed tetraethyllead from gasoline, granted women and minorities the right to vote, and drastically reduced the rate of poverty among the elderly. The charitable organizations you prefer didn't do this. I don't care how you see my ability to state your position accurately, because it's clear you're not being honest about the real world results of your beliefs.

    Libertarians tend to like the Constitution of the United States, which they then either don't read or don't understand. It's pretty simple. Article I Section 8 states the following (bolding and notes added for clarity):

    We are each touched by laws and government regulations every day. We largely have the freedom to do as we will, including peaceably assembly or petition the government for redress of our grievances. However, that's only possible if there is a government. The world has seen anarchy, and the reason we keep mentioning Somalia is because it is the only truly anarchic place in the world. End result: The strong prey on the weak. There is no infrastructure. Suffering abounds. This is your "next step."
  17. What proof do you have that the dollar will collapse? What is your evidence for this assertion, in spite of over two centuries of evidence to the contrary? I won't say "theory", because if it were, it would have been disproven long ago. Instead, I will call it a belief among those who ascribe to your world view. It has no basis in fact, much like the rest of your assertions. I'm sure you'll come out with some word salad where you try to make others look dumb, but will succeed only in making yourself look like a moonbat. I say this because it is the pattern you have displayed. Unlike your belief the dollar will collapse, this is based on evidence.
  18. adhocrat Member

    Every fiat currency in the history of the world has collapsed. What makes you think the dollar is immune?
    ditto ;)
    First, as I've said, there is no way to do this today or tomorrow. My time frame is 100 years.

    The underlying assumption seems to be that people can't be nice enough to be civilized without someone pointing a gun at their head to ensure the peace.

    As I have said before, there are plenty of historical examples of trade without government, so it's obviously possible. Now, if people truly are as bad as seems to be assumed, I don't see how we could have organized enough to have created the first civilization, since there are never enough policemen to control a determined citizenry.

    How many times have you have used force to get what you wanted. And then ask yourself: If there were no central authority telling you not to steal, would you become a thief, assuming you didn't need to just to survive? Do you think that a lot of people would lose their morals because they didn't have some man in blue telling them not to steal?

    I know about the Warlord theory, that we would be taken over and we'd become Somalia. (now where have I heard that?) But that ignores so many different currents. One it assumes that only the warlords would have access to weapons, which in the US doesn't seem likely. I think a more likely possibility is the Balkanization of the US.

    I would want someone else to explain free market security, since I am not conversant enough with the arguments to convey them to you. This is probably the part of free markets that is hardest to get through, mainly because it requires applications of all that comes before in praxeology. (the study of human action, of which Austrian economics is a part.)

    Market for Security by Robert Murphy on YouTube is probably a good start. I won't embed it here. And it is an hour long...
    Murphy is feisty and combative and he has a running challenge with Paul Krugman. So far, Murphy fans have pledged $75K to a food bank if Krugman will debate Murphy for an hour. For us econ nerds, that would truly be epic.

    Not trying to drop the problem you bring up, but for now it's too complex to pursue here.
    Pursuing the child labor though would be interesting for now.

    Scenario: We have a 6 year old child in 1870, say a boy working the textile machinery, where the small size allowed them to move about in the machinery where adults couldn't get to.

    The question is, what would he have been doing if he hadn't been working in the factory?
  19. You're too precious by half. Unsupported by history? You're projecting more than a bit. I don't care about ideological purity. I don't care about how noble you falsely think your beliefs are. I care about the end result of those beliefs, I care about why the changes that have led to our current society were made, and I examine human nature. I admire your ability to think highly of humanity, in spite of more than ample evidence to the contrary. I even agree that most people are good. However, many of those who would take power for themselves are not. The question, then, is not about how to abolish their power base, because that's simply never going to be possible in anything but the extreme short term. The question is how to mitigate the harm they can do, and again, I don't care if your time scale is ten years, a hundred years, or a thousand years: your ideas won't work. You say I'm not backed by history? Not only am I backed by history; I'm backed by current events. I'm only sorry the Republic of Minerva was contested by Tonga, because that "nation" founded on ideals like yours would have failed by now. If I'm ever in Tonga, I'll have to thank them for that act of mercy.

    Really? Every fiat currency? Hyperinflation has occurred, most notably and tragically in Zimbabwe, and the Zimbabwean dollar did collapse. However, the Italian lira didn't collapse. Italy, instead, converted to the Euro, while allowing the old currency and coins to be converted for a very reasonable time. The same is true of the Austrian schilling, Belgian franc, Cypriot pound, Estonian kroon, Deutsche Mark, Finnish markka, Maltese pound/lira, or even the Japanese yen. In fact, it is more common for nations to collapse than for fiat currencies to collapse. Eventually, everything fails, but eventually, we will all be either part of a planetary nebula or ever so slightly add to the metallicity of the white dwarf which will have once been our Sun.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. adhocrat Member

    OK, whatever. We think each other is crazy. I can live with that.

    Wanna play a game?
    I'll give you a puzzle.
    If that 6 year old boy had had the opportunity to go to school or play with his friends, why do you suppose he was working?
    Did he do it voluntarily?
    Was he forced?
    If so, how and by whom.
  21. Anonymous Member

    Child labour wasn't out of choice, they were forced labour, everyone who could work, did, no matter what the age. Parents put their kids to work because they were so poor, parents abandoned kids because they couldn't look after them, these kids either ended up in prison or hanged for crimes, or they went to orphanages who boosted their income by selling children to workhouses or mines. Being a child pre 20th century sucked, and you were lucky to make it to your 20's, and even if you did you probably died at an early age due work related disease. Or you grew up deformed by polio, rickets etc, only a tiny minority had the chance to go to school, as schools were not free then, so only the wealthier could afford not to enslave their kids and educate them.

    But you know all this because you're better edjumacated than me.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  22. anon walker Moderator

    Remember the Play Pump, endorsed by Kirstie Alley as a solution to water problems in remote African villages?

    Upside, it was a sort of piece of playground equipment.
    Downside, they'd probably force the kids to turn it all day to pump water.

    At some point, fun becomes less about play and more about coerced labor.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. anonymous612 Member

    Lolwhatthefuck. Did Adhocrat really just suggest that child labor was willing labor?
    • Agree Agree x 2
  24. Anonymous Member

    Just a quickie, it doesn't matter who has access to the weapons, it's about human nature, and the ones willing to use violence to get what they want against those who would rather trade/talk will win every time. Violent people are often cunning and good at pretending not to be violent. In a society with no restraints on them they will just be plain violent to get what they want. It's not about who has the biggest or most guns, it's about who has no conscience.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. I don't think you're crazy. Based on your comments, I know you're crazy. You're utterly, completely, barking mad. This is further proof. The simple fact is that workhouses were only a place of very last resort that was only used when absolutely all hope was gone. The dox have been provided in this forum, yet you want to state it was willing labor? It was slavery in one of its most inhumane forms, and children routinely died of on the job injuries. Those who didn't die were routinely crippled from the same. Government regulation put an end to that, and the Western nations are largely more humane places as a result. FOAD.
  26. adhocrat Member

    Actually, I've never been edjumacated before. I must be a natural.
    The bold section doesn't refer to who forced the labor, Please clarify.

    The word 'they' has no referent. Sloppy writing. Please elucidate.

    Let's see, what did I say? Oh yeah “Let's play a game.”
    Typical over the top reaction to a simple game. Why are you here, greta? I am not forcing you to read my posts and respond.

    I still haven't gotten an answer to my question. The anon guy sort of did, but he was unclear in meaning.

    So, what would the child have been doing if he hadn't been working?
    If he could have played or studied, why do you suppose he didn't?
    And if he didn't have those opportunities, what would he have been doing if not any of those suggestions?
    IOW, what did he give up to go to work?
    And if, as the anon suggested, it was forced labor, who or what forced it?
  27. Anonymous Member

    His parents, the workhouse bosses, the orphanage owners you name them. Children were viewed differently then. You were physically fit, you worked.
  28. Again, you're too precious by half. Your question is based on a false premise. The children weren't playing or studying because they were slaves. Who or what forced it? The masters of the workhouses, and they did it the way all slave owners do: through force. You imply a choice when there was none, and all of your word games cannot and will not change that simple fact.

    The reason I told you to fuck off and die, preferably in a fire, is because of your intellectual dishonesty and your eagerness to ignore the ample evidence that contradicts your world view. I used to be a libertarian. I saw the end result of those policies, and I found it was not a world I could support while being a moral person. Unlike you, I changed my opinions based on evidence.
  29. Anonymous Member

    I like puzzles.

    Your puzzle is dull.

    You're saying the Victorian kids are working voluntarily?

    I really don't think so.

    Whether it's "work or starve" or "work or you'll be beaten", it's not voluntary.

    How: risk of being turned out on the street to starve. Beatings if he doesn't work.

    By whom: workhouse owners, parents (if we're not talking about our orphan any more), gangmasters.

    If you're trying to argue that child labour is justified so long as the children have no alternative, I think that's a pretty crappy outlook, morally.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  30. Anonymous Member Child Labour

    We learn this stuff in primary school (i.e. age 8 or 10) here in the UK... I hadn't realised it wasn't widely known in the States.

    • Winner Winner x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

    Here's a grade-school introductory text for you, ad:

  32. adhocrat Member

    Please explain where the parents were when the workhouse masters came and kidnapped the children.

    Then, if they had not been forced into slavery by these terrible people, what would the child have been doing if not working in the factory. That is still the question none of you has answered.
  33. Anonymous Member

    The parents GAVE or SOLD the kids to workhouses. Because of the lack of contraception often the children were a burdon and another mouth they couldn't afford to feed.

    EVERY child (except the wealthy ones) had to earn their keep. Be it in a workhouse, at home, in a mine, on a farm, you name it, kids worked. Social mindset was different then.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  34. Anonymous Member

    My grandmother looked after (and I mean cooked, cleaned, washed, laundered etc) her 9 siblings from the age of 9, she was the oldest girl, when the youngest died due to TB her parents blamed her, something that came back to haunt her when she regressed in her old age. Very sad to see, someone who lived silently with that burden all her life.

    You need to read up on your social history adhocrat, my grandmother wasn't unusual, not by a long shot!
    • Agree Agree x 2
  35. None of us have answered your question because your question is based on a flawed premise. Where were the parents? They were working for little or nothing, and their children were disposable slaves. The question you should be asking is this: Are slavery and institutionalized child abuse wrong? You can try to play your pathetic word games, but this is the real question. I care not one bit for your ideology, and I have no patience for any ideology that willfully divorces itself from the facts, such as yours. This is the real, concrete result of your beliefs. This is what our ancestors left behind as too cruel and inhumane to permit any longer.

    Are slavery and child abuse wrong? If so, why do you support a reversion to it? Answer those two questions, and then we'll talk.

    I was once a libertarian, and it was a different question that made me reject it. That said, these questions confirm my choice.
  36. Anonymous Member

    Orphans, remember? Many of them, anyway.

    If you're saying "I blame the parents" - that the parents were what Victorians called 'the undeserving poor' - then the problem with that is that even if their poverty allows you to condemn the parents - for being workshy, presumably (and that's not something I'd agree with) - then there's still no justification for punishing the children.

    The kids weren't kidnapped - it was just better to be in the workhouse than to starve.

    In many cases the parents were right there at home, and the whole family - including the children - had to work in order to get enough money to eat.

    Maybe the parents were in the debtors' prison:


    because this kind of society - the type which you're advocating, where there's no state care or support for the poor, the sick or infirm, the young or the old - is not a society in which it's good to be poor, sick/infirm, young or old.

    And that's only OK if you view being poor, sick/infirm, young or old as some kind of moral deficiency. Personally I don't.

    If a baby is born an orphan, that's not their fault; they don't deserve to starve.

    If an adult gets cancer and can't pay for treatment; that's not their fault either.

    If an adult with health insurance has their health insurance company go bankrupt, or fail to pay out in a way which couldn't have been foreseen, I don't believe that's their fault either.

    These ^ are all circumstances in which the society you're advocating would leave the victims to their fate.

    Some of them, at least, would have been in education. Victorian society - the state - did provide some education for children (although not much, without paying).

    By the way, it seems like you're using some irony there around the terms 'forced into slavery' and 'terrible people'. I'm not getting your point - presumably you believe that it wasn't slavery, they weren't forced, and that the people who ran the child-labour-force weren't terrible. If that's your view, you'll need to state it more explicitly if you want to convince anyone that the life of a poor child in the 19th century was anything but horrible.

    Chimney sweeps, for example:


    tended to die young, of Chimney Sweep's Carcinoma (a form of cancer).'_carcinoma

    So anyway, I absolutely agree with you that, apart from the terrible exploitation and slavery/human-trafficking type situation, the other really big problem with child labour is the opportunity cost.

    The opportunity cost is: they miss out on their education.

    And therefore they miss out on the opportunity to get better work when they're older - not to mention the less easily quantifiable but perhaps more important opportunity, for some of them, to achieve a level of personal fulfillment (e.g. it's maybe some of them would have been novelists, but since they didn't have the opportunity to learn to read or write, that didn't happen).

    Even had education not been an option, however, I don't believe that would provide any kind of moral justification.

    Treating people badly cannot really be morally justified by saying that the people you're mistreating have no alternative to being treated badly, however true that may be.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  37. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    No disrespect here but lets play make believe:

    Had the situations been different in those times, kids probably would have had better opportunities available and perhaps things would have been different. Parents would have had fair pay for fair labor and the kids wouldn't have had to work.

    However, that isn't what the reality was. The reality was as way different as the mindset and morals.

    Back then, and has been stated countless times here: Orphans and poor children from poor families became a source of cheap, disposable labor. Nobody had a clue that what they were doing was wrong because nobody back then believed they were doing wrong. Of course we know all the dangers and how wrong it is, but only because of what was learned from the past.

    Essentially: If you were poor, you and your offspring were disposable. You had no way out of this situation unless you did something extraordinary. However, you had better odds of dying from work than you had that happening. You had no choices except work or die. If you owed a debt, you and your family were drug into jail and worked that debt off with high interest.

    If you were rich, you had a whole lot of options. However, if you were poor or born poor, you had no options. That basically answers the question you asked. Parents and kids had to work in order to survive because they had no choice.
    • Agree Agree x 2
  38. Anonymous Member

    Not just 'then' but also 'now', to our shame.

    The majority of those children live in 'small government' (i.e. third world) countries.
    • Winner Winner x 2
  39. Anonymous Member

  40. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    Very true.

    Problem is I was referring to the time period Adhoc was mentioning. Hopefully I wasn't referring to the thought child labor doesn't exist now. (It does as you mention and I don't doubt.)

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins