Good News In The U.S.

submitted by EndlessSunflowers from i.imgtc.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]worm 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This argument against capitalism - the idea that it is somehow capitalism and capitalism alone which forces people to labour - never really made sense to me. In this world, labour is a prerequisite for survival and for escaping mankind's natural state of poverty. No matter what sort of economic system you live under, you cannot escape the fundamental problem that poverty is the natural state of being, kept at bay only by the constant vigilance of society as a whole.

It seems to me that most people who opposes capitalism do not seem to oppose any system of distribution of resources so much as they oppose the fact that resources are required for survival - which is all well and good to oppose, but is an issue you should take up with nature, or with the laws of physics, or with God Himself if you're a religious man; to blame this on capitalism just never made any sense to me.

I'm not saying that there aren't intelligent people who argue for a better system of distribution - there are some - but I am saying that the vast majority of people who are "anti capitalism" seem to be taking issue with another problem entirely.

[–]roc 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I think capitalism is a great way to distribute resources, but I think children should not be working. Children should not be punished for their parents' poverty, especially not if caused by a society where it's easier to stay rich than to become rich.

[–]worm 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am against the senseless punishment of children just as much as the next fellow. However, I believe your characterisation of child labour as a form of punishment is flawed.

Fundamentally, I do not think that labour of any sort, by any person - even child labour - is a senseless punishment inflicted on man by the exigencies of capitalism. If labour is indeed a punishment, it is inflicted upon man not by any artificial system of social organisation, but is instead a punishment inflicted upon us by nature itself.

People often argue that children deserve an education, or children deserve not to work. What they really mean is not that the natural state of a child does not involve working, or that children left to the whims of nature will automatically be granted an education by some natural state of affairs. What they mean is that they believe our society has sufficient resources to afford to have others labour on the behalf of children so that they do not have to labour for their own survival.

The provision that children need not work is not a natural state of affairs at all. It is a privileged state of affairs afforded by our great wealth today, as compared to the relative poverty of our not-so-distant ancestors.

To sentence a child to work is not to punish them for their parents' poverty; punishment implies the use of active intervention to reverse a natural state of affairs, which is clearly not what is taking place here. It is, in fact, the opposite which is taking place: It is the wealth of the parent which allows them to reward their undeserving children with formative years free from the demands of work.

Of course, you and I would both agree that it is extremely desirable that children do not have to work. Where we disagree is merely on the definition of child labour: whether it is a punishment, or whether it is the natural state of affairs which we keep at bay by the force of our collective wealth. I believe it is clearly the latter.