Experiments in Living --

* a defeat for a generation lost in a world with no taste

Child Labour...

My argument was about the principle of child labour not its implementation. Having said that, I think you are guilty of looking at things from too much of a western-centric perspective. Some general questions: If you have no high end skills in your country – how is it possible to develop without relying on the fact that you can supply cheap labour, and if cheap labour is the only asset that you have – then why (from an economic and moral perspective) is it wrong to employ children in circumstances where their parents who are stuck in the middle of the 3rd world, wouldn’t be able to give their children a childhood anyway. What’s worse employment in a diamond mine, or starvation and being forced into crime? And if the parents are going to send their children to work anyway, then isn’t it better that the industries (excluding things like prostitution) they work in are given ‘ legal ’ status – so that its easier to ensure the safety of the child?

On choice: Children in the west are sent to school, even if they don’t want to go, because its seen as being for their own good – and as being better for the long term aims of the community as a whole. Couldn’t the same argument, in theory apply to child labour?

Wealth Distribution: It doesn’t make sense to distribute wealth evenly. Imagine a room full of 5000 people… and capital to the value of 5 million pounds. If I were to give each person in the room an equal amount - each individual would end up with 1000 pounds…. Which sounds like a lot, but is a tiny fraction of the original amount, and can only be used on an individual scale (short term gains in diet and lifestyle).

A fairer scenario: If however, I were to distribute 4 million pounds out of the 5 million to only 4 people in the room, and then to distribute the rest evenly amongst the other 4996 people, the money is now able to do more because it is so concentrated. A factory could be built, or a store could be set up… i.e. it is through the uneven distribution of wealth – that more wealth is created through employment opportunities and society as a whole therfore benefits.

Value: The other aspect to this is that you cant just release money on mass into the economy. The top 20% may have lots of money stored in their bank accounts.. but if you were to suddenly release that, with the aim being to create some kind of wishy washy Marxist utopia - the result would be inflation and a currency that didn’t mean anything.

The nature of capitalism: I disagree with your choice of imagery. Capitalism is not akin to a concentration camp. A child who works all day in a factory, is not going to die a horribly premature death. They are probably going to live for longer then their parents did. In any case - there is no economic incentive for treating your workforce badly - because the healthier your workforce is the more footballs / carpets they can produce… and ill / sick / malnourished children aren’t going to be particularly productive.

Economics: I agree that TNC’s should pay child workers more. But to make this argument isnt to argue agianst child labour (as a concept), its just saying that you'd rather workers were paid more.

Ethical trade: Most people aren’t anti McDonalds. But the effect of super size me was to force the fast food giant to look at the content of its meals and menus and try and bring about change. In the same way – most people aren’t particularly tuned into the issues surrounding child labour, but there has been enough pressure to cause some of the companies involved in child labour to provide after work schools and generally to treat children better. I guess the point i am trying to make is that its possible for their to be " good " child labour - in addition to " bad " child labour - and to argue in favour of the albolishment of ALL child labour (as opposed to say arguing for a continued shift from the later to the former) is not something that i particularly agree with. Sheraz