First, the window: when we look at policies to address poverty, we don’t look at every policy, though we may not notice the ones we exclude. For instance, I don’t think many Western economists would look at ways to experiment with the use of child labor and how it can increase farm productivity, even though it probably could indeed do that. I also doubt anyone would study the effect of slavery (or sexual slavery) on productivity (at least in an experimental way) on poor businesses in developing countries. Nobody would study a drug known to be toxic to one class of humans that could still affect their household. Even with animals, nobody would study the effect of what is commonly accepted as aberrant animal abuse on productivity.
It’s interesting how we often do investigate verbotten interventions, but we just give them different names. For example, mandatory child labour is often studied by economists and enforced by governments—we just make sure it’s not profitable and call it school. The effect of slavery on productivity, and how best to incentivise slaves, is a widely studied topic. And some practices involved in factory farming would probably be considered abuse in other contexts.
That Nozick thought experiment you linked is an argument that voting doesn’t necessarily entail legitimacy of taxation. And the Laffer curve is about tax policy, not slavery incentives. They don’t back up your claims.
For example, mandatory child labour is often studied by economists and enforced by governments—we just make sure it’s not profitable and call it school.
Except there’s pretty much nobody who would consider school to be “labour”, because there’s pretty much no accepted definition of labour where education would fit in. Presumably the reason mandatory schooling is widely considered okay is that it’s in the best interests of the children who are being sent to school.
People are down voting me but honestly, you don’t seem to have any idea what you’re talking about.
There actually was a federal court case in the U.S. where parents sued that mandatory schooling violated the 13th amendment (prohibition on slavery). The suit failed.
It’s interesting how we often do investigate verbotten interventions, but we just give them different names. For example, mandatory child labour is often studied by economists and enforced by governments—we just make sure it’s not profitable and call it school. The effect of slavery on productivity, and how best to incentivise slaves, is a widely studied topic. And some practices involved in factory farming would probably be considered abuse in other contexts.
That Nozick thought experiment you linked is an argument that voting doesn’t necessarily entail legitimacy of taxation. And the Laffer curve is about tax policy, not slavery incentives. They don’t back up your claims.
Except there’s pretty much nobody who would consider school to be “labour”, because there’s pretty much no accepted definition of labour where education would fit in. Presumably the reason mandatory schooling is widely considered okay is that it’s in the best interests of the children who are being sent to school.
People are down voting me but honestly, you don’t seem to have any idea what you’re talking about.
There actually was a federal court case in the U.S. where parents sued that mandatory schooling violated the 13th amendment (prohibition on slavery). The suit failed.
No, but it makes them more useful for economic exploitation by the rich and the politicians in their pockets.
Pretending it’s for the children’s own good just sounds nicer.