How much should the government protect us from things? What form should government protection take? When does “protection” become top down coercion?
The US Labor Department wants to roll back some of the relaxation of “child labor” restrictions allowed by some States. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4123821-dol-cracks-down-on-child-labor-while-states-loosen-laws/ What should we (or for minors—our parents) be allowed to decide for ourselves and what should the government be allowed to decide for us?
Back to my childhood in Bakersfield again. I was absolutely thrilled when I was able to earn money delivering the morning newspaper. I can’t remember my age exactly, but I think it was 14 or 15. I got up at 5:00 or 6:00 in the morning when a stack of the morning paper was dropped on our porch. I rolled them up and put them in a backpack, mounted my bicycle, and threw them as close to the porches of the subscribers on my list as possible. Bakersfield being semidesert was pleasantly cool in the summer mornings and very cold –freezing cold—in the winter. It virtually never snowed in Bakersfield because if virtually never rained, but it certainly froze any water around in the winter. The wide swing of temperatures between the night and the day is typical of deserts.
Having this job absolutely thrilled me more than the modest money I earned. Prior to qualifying age wise to deliver newspapers, I made money growing tomatoes in our back yard and selling them to the neighbors door to door. They were thrilled to buy my big red delicious and very fresh from the vine tomatoes. No one minded that I might have been breaking some law or other. When I became 16 and had a driver’s license, I went to work for Fedway Department store as an assistant to the parking lot attendant. The next year I was promoted to a salesclerk inside the store. These were weekend jobs.
The money I made was helpful (75 cent per hour if I recall correctly) but the experience was even more valuable. I loved having these jobs. They were indications of growing up. If for some reason and some how they were bad for me (exploitive?? Ha ha), it was rightly up to my parents to say no. Big Brother is overreaching into our lives again. Helicopter moms are bad enough.
Warren's space 
I assume you grew up in a stable, educated, middle class family — with parents able to
make reasonable decisions about your welfare. But what about the children who grow up in poor, unstable, uneducated families? Who will protect them? Would you think that it was inappropriate coercion for the state to prohibit a parent from telling her 14 year old child that she had to drop out of school and work fulltime doing work that might be hazardous to the child’s health and development? Seems to me this isn’t about liberty; it’s just a matter of line drawing. Government restrictions on child labor should be reasonable, evidence-based, and no broader then necessary to advance society’s legitimate interests and the child’s welfare.
Jack, no one cares more about the welfare of children than their parents. The exceptions of mentally impaired parents are very rare. There are parents who want and can benefit from outside help (not coercion but shared knowledge and advice) and there are many good hearted Americans willing to offer it. When a parent becomes dangerous for their own child we should have state intervention that removes the child. Otherwise, largely leave it to parents to make their own decisions. Yes it is about liberty. Liberty is good.
So I assume you do not believe government should be able to prevent a parent from subjecting his gay teen age son to conversion therapy against the child’s will.
Contrary to what some libertarians apparently believe, those of us on the left believe liberty is a very important concern. In fact, many of us, myself included, believe it’s the most important concern. We just don’t believe that it’s the only legitimate concert.
Jack, I believe that the imposition of the government’s (who is that by the way) view against that of a parent should pass a very high bar after serious public debate. A parent that subjects a gay son to conversion therapy is sad but will not convert anyone. Parents will made mistakes but I would rather trust their judgement (and ability to reverse mistakes) than those of bureaucrats with no or less direct interest.
In a democracy, “the government” consists of people elected by the public in free and fair elections and those who are hired to act pursuant to the laws enacted by those people — subject to legal
review by an independent judiciary and oversight by an independent press. At the local level, the people who make up “the government” are our neighbors and friends. Sometimes they do foolish or even bad things — for which they should be, and often are, held accountable. But, in a democracy, at least in the long run, they are rarely a threat to our liberty.
The optimal line is where the benefits of free choice roughly equal the costs. Your example illustrates the case where the benefits exceed the costs, i.e. the line is too restrictive. Banning fentanyl sale and use without a prescription is a possible counter example.
I agree, of course. But who makes the cost benefit determination? We do fortunately still have public debate about such choices. We need to insure that these discussions are civil if they are to be “wise”.
So do you think the government should be able to prevent a parent from subjecting his gay teen age son to conversion therapy against the child’s will?
Contrary to what some libertarians apparently believe, those of us on the left believe liberty is a very important concern. In fact, many of us, myself included, believe it’s the most important concern. We just don’t believe that liberty is the only legitimate concern.
It’s not clear to me whether the Labor Dept. is enforcing existing standards or changing standards (including their interpretation). One suspects administrative overreach. Perhaps one or more states will sue to resolve this. Helluva way to run a country though. Just change the law by administrative fiat (with “a phone and a pen” as Obama called it) and see if you get away with it.
While I haven’t researched the details, the release states that the Department is more vigorously enforcing existing law. Nothing in the document suggests that the Department has either issued any new regulations or adopted any new interpretation of existing law and regulations. Rather, it appears the Department is enforcing federal standards in states that have adopted less rigorous ones. If so, the proper resource presumably would be to seeks congressional legislation relaxing the existing restrictions on employing children — or giving states more latitude to adopt standards that differ from federal ones.