A while back I borrowed a little bit of Walter Williams' logic and took another step. That step lead me to firmly state that child labor shouldn't be outlawed.

Why?

In a free society, which we presumably have in the US, no one is forced to work. If you will be better off working at business A than not working, you will work. This logic has been used to justify Wal-Mart's wages, and many other business practices.

I have yet to see it applied to child labor. If a family desires their child to work to help support their family, they should be allowed to. If a family is desperate for money, and the child isn't allowed to work an honest job, wouldn't that force the child into a dishonest or "bad" job? These would include prostitution, stealing, or possibly drug involvement.

In public school, a motif during coverage of the industrial revolution was the horrible working conditions. Child labor is also beaten in heavily and the teacher rejoices when she announces that it was finally outlawed.

The fact remains, however: the child wouldn't be working if it or it's family didn't need the money.

While I can understand the purpose behind the laws, I have certain complaints about how the State hinders entry level jobs that favour youth and their ability to gain those jobs.

My Father's Father worked in the mill in Columbia SC at the age of 6. He went to work when it was dark, and got off when it was also dark. This was a misuse of child labour. However, he grew up and put himself through school, and made a better life for himself, even though he still remained in the mills for years.

However, the most egregious sin is that which the Minimum Wage law does to budding entrepreneurs at an early age. They are shut out of the systeml because they are not in a position to compete with older workers, who are willing to work for that minimum standard.

It should not be for the State to regulate the collective bargaining system as it is. If children wish to work part time, or in the summer, they should be able to obtain employment at a less thatn required stiped. and the more the minimum wage increases, the less will be able to enter the work force and learn the skills that are important for them when they leave the education system and begin working full time.

Child labor should be outlawed, I believe, simply because the amount of instances in which the child is working because of his own free will, and not being coerced, is negligently miniscule.

Parents should not be able to decide whether or not their child should have to go work. They chose to bring the child into the world without the child's consent, they are responsible for it's well being. If they dislike this contract, they can put the child up for adoption.

Families should be required to have a minimum of 10 children. 5 of whom must be consigned to public or military service and receive just a small pittance. The family would receive a generous tax break or rebate depending on the value of the service provided by their offspring.
These children would form the bulk of our military.(cannon fodder)
Those who did not meet the reproductive requirements would be suitably chastised and receive punishment.
This would solve many social problems me thinks!

If not the parents, who? You or I? The government? You are right, though; the parents can decide to put the child up for adoption. If they can afford it, they can even abort the child before it is born. Given this, why shouldn't they also decide if the child needs to earn a small wage doing a simple job?

Another angle to take: What is worse? I would say having to work as a child would be better than having no family.

Furthermore, let me bring this practical point up again. Since the child can't go work a relatively bad job (relative to us anyway), what would he/she do? Most likely, a relatively terrible job. Outlawing child labor doesn’t eliminate the reason the child wants to work. They, or their family, need the money. That need still exists after child labor laws are passed.

John you are absolutely right about the minimum wage. It does prevent low-skilled workers from entering the workforce. If a person can't perform labor that is worth the minimum wage they will be paid, they won't be hired. Too bad they can't be hired for less money.

The number of times the child is working of his own free will is negligently miniscule. He is being coerced to work by his parents, who are legally responsible for his well being.

If you do not want to take on legal responsibility for the well being of another human being, don't have a child.

I agree about minimum wage, eliminate it.

The number of times the child is working of his own free will is negligently miniscule. He is being coerced to work by his parents, who are legally responsible for his well being.

Even arguing that point, the child has the right to the money he makes, not his parents. Should the parents steal his rightfully earned money, they could be indicted.

If you do not want to take on legal responsibility for the well being of another human being, don't have a child.

I agree about minimum wage, eliminate it.

Ben, you and the others here are talking around each other. You are using the word "child" to mean someone around 6 to 10 years of age. The rest of us are talking about children 12 or thirteen and above. If a child wishes to have a summer job stocking grocery shelves, helping landscape companies, or working at someone's place of business, then why shouldn't he/she be able to do so, for that which the child can bargain: even if it be less than the minimum wage?

And why would the parents obscound with the money that the child has earned? This would be something that parents would most likely like, as the child would be learning how to manage his/her own money, at an early age? Today, the child cannot do this, because unless he/she makes the minimum wage, the child is SOL.