Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Ayn Rand's objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I don't think "go read a history book" is a good backing for any claim, but in any case, this article might be of interest:
http://mises.org/daily/2858
Yes - it is when someone is disputing something occurred.
There is ample evidence of the exploitation that was enabled by lack of governmental regulation of industry where profit and profit alone was the be all and end all.
As I said - there was a reason governments eventually acted and a read of a history book is a good place to learn what those reasons were.
Read the article - It deals with the US which is politically very different from the European models also the author is not exactly what one would describe as objective.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh and to clarify my very first few words was asking for proof of your assertation which you still haven't even attempted to provide.
Your very first words were about Rome - you were the only one to mention Rome so as I made no assertion on topic there is nothing I need to provide evidence for.
You then went off on a tangent as far as my post (the one you were responding to) by introducing current affairs and are now sulking because I didn't engage with that tangent.
Then you said something about Emily Dickenson.
But if you require proof of exploitation and what legislation was brought in to try and protect children, here you go:The successful exploitation of child labour was vital to Britain's economic success in the 19th century. In 1821, approximately 49% of the workforce was under 20. In rural areas, children as young as five or six joined women in 'agricultural gangs' that worked in fields often a long way from their homes. Although a law against the employment of children as chimney sweeps was passed as early as 1788, young people - because of their size and agility - were still used in this role for much of the 19th century.Changes came in 1833 when the Factory Act was passed. The Act not only created the post of factory inspector, but also made it illegal for textile factories to employ children less than 9 years of age. The Act came at a time when reformers like Richard Oastler were publicising the terrible working conditions of children, comparing the plight of child labourers to that of slaves. The timing was significant: slavery was abolished in the British empire in 1833-4.Further legislation limiting child labour in factories was introduced in 1844, 1847, 1850, 1853 and 1867. After 1867 no factory or workshop could employ any child under the age of 8, and employees aged between 8 and 13 were to receive at least 10 hours of education per week. But such legislation was not foolproof. Inspectors often found it difficult to discover the exact age of young people employed in factories, and reports showed that factory owners did not always provide the hours set aside by law for education.
Although a law against the employment of children as chimney sweeps was passed as early as 1788, young people - because of their size and agility - were still used in this role for much of the 19th century. 1818, William Cooper (himself a chimney sweep) tells how 'climbing boys' were tricked or forced, through beatings, to clean chimneys. This was a long-standing social problem, constantly highlighted by campaigners. It was not until 1875 that the veteran reformer Lord Shaftesbury, in an effort to improve safety, managed to introduce an Act compelling all sweeps to register with the police.
This is a copy of a letter to William Woods & Son of Wigan - the owners of the factory where Martha Appleton's accident ( As a 13-year-old textile worker in Wigan, Martha was employed as a 'scavenger', picking up loose cotton from beneath machinery. On one particular day, Martha fainted and caught her left hand in an unguarded machine. In the accident, all her fingers were severed. Martha lost her job because she was no longer able to work efficiently) occurred - from Robert Baker, the Inspector of Factories to whom the report on her accident was sent. The inspector somewhat mildly admonishes the factory owners for failing to 'box off' the wheels that injured Martha, and states that they could have been boxed off 'without detriment to the working of the machine'. Although he clearly wants to see a settlement that is equitable to both Martha and her employers, he also seems anxious not to encourage too high a level of compensation.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/struggle_democracy/childlabour.htm
Do you dispute these things happened under a lassez faire political system?
Do you seriously believe they would not happen again if legislated protections are repealed?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement