Perhaps one of the greatest objections to youth liberation is that regarding parental rights and responsibilities. The argument essentially goes that since parents are financially and legally responsible for many of the consequences of the actions of youth that they have guardianship over, it only follows that they should have control over the rights and actions of their offspring. This objection to youth liberation is a powerful one, but it fails to take into account an essential factor. The reason that youth are not capable of taking care of themselves, the reason that the parental objection of “while you’re under my roof, you’ll obey my rules” even works is because youth suffer from a condition of financial disenfranchisement. They are not permitted to be financially self-sufficient. In fact, financial self-sufficiency among youth is prohibited through a combination of child labor and compulsory schooling laws.
The unfortunate reality is that most older youth, particularly adolescents, are not in a state of natural dependency (as they are biological adults, and it is biologically natural for biological adults to be independent) but in a state of forced dependency. If a man were to lock his son inside the house, and then came home and complained that the son had not gone outside all day, what would we think of such a man? Would we think that he makes a valid point here? It is unlikely that any reasonable person would! We can apply the same standard to the issue of forced dependency and parental complaints about it. (Although we must recognize the fact that most individual parents are not personally responsible for the existence of prohibitive restrictions on youth labor. Hence, their position is roughly equivalent to the mother of the son in the analogy who does not personally participate in locking the son inside the house, but still comes home and complains about the fact that he did not go outside.)
The youth right to economic power is a rather broad topic that will need to be divided into several components. Primarily, we will examine the impact of child labor laws, as well as a brief look at the compulsory schooling laws that they go hand in hand with. (For a fuller analysis of compulsory schooling laws, be sure to see our Education Position Paper.)
An examination of laws forbidding youth to hold property or finances will also be necessary to our analysis.
Primarily, we will analyze the impact of child labor laws as they relate to youth and greater society. Most people are of the opinion that child labor laws (the central restrictive policies, with compulsory schooling laws playing a somewhat secondary role) are necessary for several reasons.
That they protect children and youth from unsafe working conditions. This is far from the truth. In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions are no longer the norm, and rarely exist in the formal economy. Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. Numerous benefits available through the formal economy, such as healthcare plans, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave also serve to provide humane conditions for workers.
In fact, child labor laws may accomplish the exact opposite of this stated reason for them. By prohibiting youth from working in the formal economy, child labor laws push youth who are desperate to work into the informal economy, which lacks workplace regulations, safety codes, a minimum wage, and other benefits of the formal economy. For instance, instead of working in a retail position, a young person may be forced to undertake arduous and difficult physical labor. (It is technically illegal for persons under 18 to perform difficult manual labor, but this rule is largely ignored in the informal economy. And this law brings up another interesting point. In light of the biological differences between men and women, does it hold that a 17 year old man should be prohibited from working in construction, for instance, but that an 18 year old woman should not, even though the former is likely stronger than the latter?)
More ominously, many youth desperate to escape poor home conditions and parents who exercise their government-given rights to apply corporal punishment to their offspring, may engage in forms of work that are actually illegal, such as selling drugs or prostitution. To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, they may sink deep into a criminal underworld, participating in such activities that are necessitated by the prohibitions on them getting a safer, legal job.
Now what of the case of third-world countries that would place children and youth into poor working conditions? (Of course, poor working conditions for youth, as well as for adults, exist in industrialized countries also, but they are more prevalent in developing countries.) Obviously, we are primarily focused on policy change in America, but this is a valid issue that must be addressed. There is no denying that children and youth in many third-world countries are subjected to poor working conditions, but are they really so much worse off than the adult laborers at their side?
Perhaps opponents of child labor can more effectively channel their zeal for humane working conditions in demanding humane working conditions for all third-world workers, rather than just one age group.
Moreover, however well-intentioned anti-child labor activists may be, the consequences of their actions are not as pleasant as they might intend. After the implementation of the Child Labor Deterrence Act in the U.S., which was introduced with the purpose of, “prohibit[ing] the importation of goods produced abroad with child labor and for other purposes...,” about 50,000 Bangladeshi children and youth lost their jobs in the garment industry, according to a UNICEF study.
[1] The study goes on to state that the youth were forced into labor positions
“more hazardous and exploitative than garment production,” such as
“stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution.” The study states that boycotts and legislation against child labor are
“blunt instruments with long-term consequences, that can actually harm rather than help the children involved.” This study further illustrates the fact that protectionist attempts to “end” child labor may in fact do the exact opposite. We mentioned the fact that child labor laws in the U.S. force youth into more dangerous and unregulated forms of employment, and this further proves our point.
(It is important to note that citation of this study does not imply endorsement or support of the suggested policies stated within. For instance, the analysis states that “UNICEF advocates a comprehensive strategy that supports and develops local initiatives and provides alternatives-notably compulsory primary education of high quality-for liberated children.” Firstly, it is necessary to note that compulsory “education” is a contradiction in terms, as has been pointed out by youth rights theorist Richard Farson. True education comes from free choice, not from coercion. As to compulsory schooling, which is what the UNICEF analysis promotes, it is an unjustly coercive form of indoctrination, as we have covered in our Education position paper. It does not promote the well-being of “liberated children,” as UNICEF claims. It does just the opposite. ASFAR does not endorse or support this recommendation made by UNICEF.)
That they prevent incompetent youth from “getting in over their heads.” Ironically enough, the exact opposite of the stated effect of child labor laws is typically achieved in this instance also. Incompetence and inability is bred through a lack of training and experience, which is promoted by child labor laws. A common complaint among adults and anti-youth bigots is that modern youth are lazy and apathetic. We should return to the father-son analogy in this instance, and ask how youth can honestly be called lazy and apathetic when they are in a state of forced dependency and are prohibited from working. (Or seeking meaningful work, for that matter.)
Lack of economic opportunity and work experience deprives youth of the potential for responsibility and self-management. If anyone wishes to complain about the apathy, laziness, or other similar negative quality of modern youth, they must first consider the lack of opportunity that has been offered them.
Hence, a lack of opportunity for employment experience breeds the very incompetence that child labor laws are intended to prevent, and this is another instance of them achieving the exact opposite of their stated effect. This is a case where the medicine causes the illness.
That youth will leave school en masse if child labor (and by extension, compulsory schooling laws) are abolished. This problem is easily countered by abolishing age limits for school attendance. The majority opinion holds that youth are not competent persons capable of making an informed decision about leaving school and working. Assuming this was true, they could simply return to school later if there were no age limits on school attendance, and continue where they left off. But the fact of the matter is that this so-called “incompetence” and inability to make an informed decision is caused by the very school system intended to safeguard youth from the consequences of their “ignorance.” This is another case of the medicine causing the sickness.
Because a hierarchical, authoritarian environment is not conducive to learning or education, school typically cripples the mental capacities of students who go through its gates rather than expanding them. Attaining work experience outside of school would likely enable youth to make more informed and responsible decisions, as they would be exposed to the realities of labor and “adult life” to a greater degree than the pseudo-intellectual environment of school could ever facilitate. Ultimately, this boils down to the issue of whether one prefers schooling or education.
When re-analyzed, we can see no compelling reason to retain child labor laws, as they are repressive and unnecessary, and every reason to abandon them in favor of a more enlightened standard.
We must next examine the issue of financial freedom for youth, and their right to own property and money, as well as manage their finances free from external restraint. We must again rebut several myths that are woefully prevalent in the minds of the general public in this phase. They are as follows:
That youth will squander or waste money if they are permitted to manage it independently. It is first necessary to recognize the fact that in their current disenfranchised state, youth have very little money. Thus, itÂ’s somewhat pointless to argue that they would bring financial ruin or catastrophe upon themselves by wasting what little money they do have. It would be far more damaging if their parents or guardians were to squander their money, for the greater amount of money that their parents possess is intended to pay for things of greater moral significance, such as food and shelter, than whatever cheap tokens youth are able to afford with the measly few dollars Uncle Sam allows them to have.
But if our campaign to grant youth economic power is to be successful, then this is a legitimate concern that must be addressed. So how would youth be prevented from squandering their money on petty or trivial things? The fundamental necessity is that whatever “prevention” exists will not be one of force or coercion, but one of persuasion or education. Adults are not prevented from spending themselves into financial ruin, because they have been educated to understand the consequences of wasteful spending.
In this matter, we agree with the philosopher John Stuart Mill when he declared that “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. Those are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.
[2]
If youth are educated as to matters of financial prudence from a very young age, they will be able to manage finances to some extent while still young children, and will be fully capable of managing their own finances independently as they enter adolescence. Ultimately, this bar may be pushed back even further, as youth are further liberated.
A Biblical proverb confirms the soundness of our policy: “Train up a child in the way he will go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
-Proverbs 22:6
The fundamental key here is education, not coercion. Instead of being taught that “a penny saved is a penny earned,” young children are commissioned to watch the latest Disney release. There is nothing inherently wrong with recreational activities for young children, but oftentimes, they are infantilized through exposure to primitive elements rather than more advanced elements. This is largely responsible for the very “immaturity” parents and caretakers aim to prevent.
In light of this, we of ASFAR recommend the institution of several policies to combat the disenfranchisement of youth in the American economy.
Repealing child labor laws. This is obviously not to suggest that young toddlers should be in the habit of performing arduous physical labor. This merely recognizes the reality that an arbitrary line in the sand cannot determine the competence of individual workers. Economic liberty will allow youth to take control of their own lives in a responsible and self-sufficient manner. We also call for the elimination of legal restrictions that mandate that older teenagersÂ’ hours be limited or dependent on school attendance. What measly jobs do exist for older youths are typically not sufficient (in terms of wages) to grant them economic liberty precisely because of these restrictions.
Repealing compulsory schooling laws. We elaborate on the need for this further in our Education position paper, but the fundamental reality is that laws that mandate that youth be in school during the day obviously interfere with their ability to hold a job, and thus it is necessary to eliminate such laws.
Eliminating restrictions on youths owning and possessing property and finances. Youth must be permitted to hold bank accounts and other finances if they are to receive true economic liberty. As long as parents and legislators lament the laziness of youth and their financial dependence, we are certain that they will be just as willing to promote the economic liberty of youth, and the ability to own finances and purchase property is an essential component of that economic liberty.
All in all, we intend to promote economic liberty for youth in order to uphold the necessary responsibility that comes with civil rights. Since the ageist establishment frequently points to youthsÂ’ financial dependence on their parents and guardians as a fundamental impediment to their liberation, we hope that they will join us in promoting economic liberty for youth and welcome them wholeheartedly in doing so. Through youthÂ’s reception of economic liberty, they will be one step closer towards the more humane, just society promised by liberation.
[1 ]“The State of the World’s Children 1997.” UNICEF-This study can be accessed online at UNICEF State of the World's Children 1997 - Summary.
[2]”On Liberty” John Stuart Mill-(In the name of intellectual and academic honesty, we must acknowledge that Mill did not consider youth to be worthy of self-governance, as he stated several paragraphs later. However, we believe that Mill was mistaken on this issue. He did not take into account the effects of repressive environmental factors as opposed to natural law on the maturity and competence of children and youth. Immediately after, he also claims that libertarian doctrines should not apply to “backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as its nonage.” Clearly, Mill did not analyze environmental factors to a sufficient extent in his analyses of minority populations.)
