Child labor was a classic 'bootleggers and baptists' scenario where well-intentioned activists were empowered by self-interested parties to achieve economic gain. Much like how prohibition was maintained by selfish bootleggers and teetotaling baptists, child labor laws were enacted by a mix of self-interested industrialists, city-centric unions, and well-intentioned wealthy activists.

>">We must remember that depriving families of income doesn't help them

I believe similar arguments were made in favour of slavery. That didn't work out so well either. The best way to not deprive families of income is to... not deprive families of income."

I am not an expert on slavery, but I don't think the main problem was parents having their children work to earn money for the household... and I'm not sure how you could interpret my point as being one in favor of slavery.

>">The best way to not deprive families of income is to... not deprive families of income.

It's an unusual world view that suggests that not working their children to death somehow gets in the way of this."

If you want to free children from dreadful toil and danger, you should do so by helping them and their families (through charity, and by personally helping them), rather than by restricting them to further poverty. Saying someone can't have a job doesn't make them rich, and being self-righteous about it doesn't help either.

In the U.S. what finally ended child labor was that adults were out of work during the great depression. Child labor was made illegal so adults could finally get jobs because child wages simply cost companies less. So yes it absolutely was about exploitation. The dreadful working conditions for children were also true and that got the non-industrial elite behind the effort to make it illegal.

Voluntary charity has not solved the problem of poverty. That's old Ayn Rand nonsense, and she was wrong about a great many things. In the end, she cashed her Social Security checks. And good for her, she was entitled to them.

It's becoming fashionable on the right to deny the "veil of ignorance" and instead embrace inheritance of class as if it's a genetic trait. I sometimes wonder if the right pines for the great old days of primogeniture too. For now, it still takes a sovereign to get some people who have enough marbles to share their toys so others can live.

The U.S. adopted all kinds of laws in the Great Depression, including laws against overtime work and pay. Most of these laws were targeted at Keynesian stimulus and creating jobs, and few had anything to do with ethics or morality (though these latter concerns may have played supporting roles).

I am not a Randian, but there is nothing wrong with taking benefits from a system which had (in her view) wronged her. If I steal some things you need, then offer you some of them back, acceptance of my offer is not tantamount to forgiveness, and does not condone or justify my behaviour.

I am no Rawlsian, and the 'veil of ignorance' assumes that everyone would agree if only they were not self-interested; the only problem with this is that it's not true. There is much more variance of moral belief within each class/gender/nationality/race than across them.