Child labor laws should be abolished.
In most Western, industrialized countries, inhumane work conditions rarely exist in the formal economy. Workers in the formal economy are now protected through workplace regulation and safety codes. They also get health insurance, pensions, a minimum wage, and vacation and sick leave.
Child labor laws (which limit the hours youth can work, require parental consent, and a medical exam, and working papers given by the state based on a medical exam) force youth desperate for money to work in the informal economy, which lack safety regulations, minimum wage, and all those other benefits. This is not to say toddlers should be working.
Compulsory schooling laws should be abolished.
One can argue that youth are incompetent to quit school, but this problem can be easily countered by abolishing age limits for school attendance, allowing them to return at any time.
Runaway laws should be abolished.
The definition of runaway is "an unmarried child under the age of 18 years who is absent from the home of a parent or other lawful placement without the consent of the parent, guardian, or lawful custodian" so they need their parents permission to leave home. The reason behind runaway laws is teens don't know what they are getting into if they can't move out. If that's the case, why punish them for running away? We don't call an elderly person with Alzheimer's a "runaway" when they wander off.
To evade capture by the authorities under terms of runaway laws, some youth will turn to the crime. If we allowed them to move out, work without restrictions, and to sign a lease, this problem would go away.
These laws are more likely to protect than to turn the youth to crime. Point by point:
Work: even in the Western countries, employers tend to overcome regulations which they do not consider important. For example, workers are often made to work overtime without any extra salary. Another point is that people tend to be disrespectful to young people. This way, their work conditions will necessarily become worse than the adults'. The authorities could help, however, the youth usually considers the system as corrupt, useless and restricting, therefore is unlikely to turn there for help. Meanwhile, adults, while not trusting it entirely, believe in the authorities somewhat more. That said, parental consent and knowledge is a good way to fight back many of the abuses and half-legal employments. Also, youth do not need to turn to the criminals for money: they can easily earn it via small, short-run tasks, from distributing leaflets to teaching younger students. The problem here is not the law - it is that teens are not informed enough about their possibilities.
Education: while it could be argued that there is nothing necessary apart from the basic tips of doing physical work, finding a home, and the alike, a few things are needed to be pointed out: one is that basic cultural knowledge and basic scientific knowledge makes one more broad-minded and, even more importantly, more critical, which is crucial nowadays. And critical thinking is a skill which has to be acquired via education - while one may encounter the "don't believe in anybody" thumb rule soon, without knowledge, they will never be able to spot the well-hidden lies, which might be included in complex sentence structures, high level words, or numbers acquired via a non-scientific approach. One could argue that these skills can be acquired throughout your lifetime, however, younger people's brains are more capable of learning. We also should note that, as I said already, many teens consider the necessities as bad things - and therefore would like to escape from them. One's education has a significant impact on their lives, which is often realized tens of years after quitting the school. No education is just like bad education. And, as Henry Brooks Adams said: "A teacher affects eternity; he can never tell where his influence stops." If one did not learn enough, you may never know what it will cause in their lifetime.
In the other two points, you come up with the relation of the laws to crime. Thus, let me point out that the more educated a person is, the less likely they tend to become criminals. "He who opens a school door, closes a prison." - Victor Hugo
Runaway: while abolishing this law would certainly have a positive consequence, the negative effects would be major as well. One is that with this law, it is easier to find the youth who were running away - indeed some teens turn to crime to evade, however, most of them had ran away because of a not discussed issue, which could range from depression to in-family problems. These teens are unlikely to turn to crime in order to evade capturing, and therefore, are more likely to get home. Do not forget: it might be hard to reverse their decisions without help! Also, when they are found, these issues are likely to be discussed with either their family or, in special cases, with the help of a psychiatrist. This way, this law is actually useful, as many of the young people running away will eventually get back to normal life. We also should mention that the police search often finds out that the lost teenager as actually been murdered. If this law would be abolished, there is a high chance that there would be even more unsolved cases of lost children.
Summarizing, I believe that due to the fact that teenagers are not emotinally stable, nor respected, and therefore are more likely to be victims, these laws actually protect them instead of forcing them to turn to crime and are not putting heavy burdens on them.
1. People tend to
be disrespectful to young people.
Should we put these restrictions on a race/ethnic group just because people tend to be disrespectful to that group? No.
2. Even in the
Western countries, employers tend to overcome regulations which they do not
If these restrictions on youth were removed, youth can complainto a board without repercussions. If we advertised to a large audience the "employee & working board" (just like we have license departments for doctors and when a doctor doesn't follow the rules or is unethical we can complain to the state medical board).
adults, while not trusting it entirely, believe in the authorities somewhat
But although that is correlated with age, it is not caused by age.
1. while it could
be argued that there is nothing necessary apart from the basic tips of doing physical work, finding a home, and the alike, a few things are needed to be pointed out: one is that basic cultural knowledge and basic scientific knowledge makes one more broad-minded and, even more importantly, more critical, which is crucial nowadays. And critical thinking is a skill which has to be acquired via education - while one may encounter the "don't believe in anybody" thumb rule soon, without knowledge, they will never be able to spot the well-hidden lies, which might be included in complex sentence
structures, high level words, or numbers acquired via a non-scientific approach.
Then why does school require we take gym (physical education)? It should be optional, right? And school should just require the basics of what we need for a job. We can do that with less school hours. Finland, ranked #1 in education in the world, there students only go to school for 4 hours a day, finish at 16 and start a age 7. They even abolished preschool. Can we learn all the aforementioned in less school hours? And also college students learn in college without the restrictions teens have.
2. Many teens consider the necessities as bad things and therefore would like to escape from them.
We need necessities to survive. If teens need it to survive, why would they consider necessities as bad things?
3. One's education has a significant impact on their lives, which is often realized tens of years
after quitting the school.
Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Einstein quit school, and so did many other successful people.
4. Thus, let me point out that the more educated a person is, the less likely they tend to become criminals.
That is because of our "go or no job" society.
And there was a study that showed that things we learn in school don't even
help with the job.
1. Most of them had ran away because of a not discussed issue, which could range from depression to in-family problems.
Should we look for adults who ran away because they might be having these issues? What about a wife who left her husband? Should we look for her because she might have these issues?
Runaway laws harm teens who want to go somewhere but their parents say no. this just violates their personal autonomy. They should not be forced to accept what their parents want. A 16 year old and a 1 year old are at different levels, but have the same rights, and that's not right.
2. We also should mention that the police search often finds out that the lost teenager as actually been murdered.
You have stated the contrary when you said "many of the young people running away will eventually get back to normal life." Most either go back to a normal life or are murdered.
Before the industrial revolution there was no adolescence. Adolescence originated as compulsory schooling laws strengthened. New
research shows teens are just as competent as adults, and even superior to adults in in terms of memory, intelligence, and perception. And here is a link to this.
Respect: it just backed up my reasoning, and was not a standalone part. I mentioned respect as it causes poorer work conditions, which, alongside of the lack of trust in the system creates a harmful situation, making the law have positive effects.
Complaints: that is what I basically said: teens tend not to complain to the authorities / boards. Let me speak about my personal experiences: a number of times, when there was a problem, which could be solved by some higher authority (which includes anyone with higher responsibilities and action possibilities), they tended not to tell it and rather accepted the problem. This distrust ensures that a high percentage of the young people working would not file a complaint, and as such, the illegalities will not be resolved. Also, a study, which I encountered around a year ago, has shown, that even though even adults usually would/do not report corruption, the percentage among teens is even higher.
Trust in the system: it is actually caused by the age (alongside of many other possible factors): it is the time of becoming an adult, and thus, as the 'normal' way of life changes, it is the time of questioning everything. And to illustrate that even when a common, negative phenomenon is caused by a factor only a few times, we do against it, let me give a somewhat harsh example: psychopaths tend to commit crimes, but crimes do not "tend" to be committed by psychopaths (only a small per cent is). However, we still do restrict them, and assign a psychologist to them. That is the case: not every distrust is caused by being a teen, but being a teen causes distrust. Thus, we have to act this way.
Requirements: I have never said that P.E. is unimportant, just did not emphasize it - being fit is just as important as being able to handle complex situations. And while you could argue that a mathematician needs only mathematics, a football coach needs only sports, etc., this is untrue. First of all, young people usually are not able to decide which profession they will take. Also, each additional skill contributes, and might turn out helpful - being fit for a scientists is just as useful as being smart for a coach: a lot of situations require either.
Finland: indeed they do have a well-working high school system, measured by the competence skills on the PISA test. [link 1] While their different education system looks nice, we have to see that 66% of the Finnish children even continue to universities or colleges, which is the highest rate in the EU [link 2]. Less classes can be true, but it is a question of how is education done, not is education done?
Colleges: yes, it is more free. However, we have to see that many of the core skills are developed in high school (others in elementary). This way, it is not necessary for everyone to continue to higher education - even though it is beneficial.
Necessities as bad things: my apologies if I was not fully understandable. I considered those necessities, which, while are not needed to survive, society considers necessary. These include rules, regulations, many ethical questions and cultural questions. These are questioned, and often not followed by the teens [link 3]. Tendency shows that, while breaking rules is common, breaking social norms is even more often. As such, if school would not be compulsory, likelihood shows that many teenagers would not continue their education.
People: Jobs - he quit college. Gates - he quit university. Both have finished high school. [links 4, 5] Einstein - he has quit school around 120 years ago, back in a very different age. In 1900, in the US (I have not exact figures for Germany), enrollment rates for 5 to 19 year old children was around 50% [link 6]. These 3 people do not disprove that without high school, it is nowadays nearly impossible to become successful - not only that only one of them did not finish high school, who studied over a century ago, it also has to be noted that there are much more successful people, who DID finish even university.
Job, prisons: chances are that even an uneducated individual will find a job. Not to mention that while, for example, reading books with complex sentence structures does not help most of the people for their job, it helps them to interpret everyday texts, such as bills. Not to mention that a 2008 study states that 60% of the prison population has difficulties in basic literacy skills. [link 7]
Levels: so are 12 and 25 year old people. Applying your logic, we can also prove that runaway laws are good.
Personal autonomy: while there is truth in this, we also must mention that teens take more risk than an adult in case of unknown risks (which is common in real life). [link 8] While this is necessary, taking too much risk causes harmful consequences. This way, runaway law is preventive.
Normal life or murder: that sounds nice, however, the percentage of murder is much less than it seems to be from the media. I have recently heard in the news (on a local, non-English language TV channel), that around 90% of „lost” 14-18 year old children are found, while most of the others are attacked by criminals and not runaway. We also have to see that less people care about "Child ran away but found" than about "Another shocking murder", but still, there are few murders. And again, I have to say: while teens' qualities are helpful, risk-taking is also a problem.
http://www.literacytrust.org.uk..., page 6
1. Being a teen causes distrust.
There is no evidence being a ten causes distrust. Should we restrict everyone who distrusts the system? And/or everyone who is not likely to complain?
"Psychopathy" is a term used to describe individuals who meet certain characteristics. As with other medical conditions, we used a term to describe certain symptoms combined. In order to meet the definition of "psychopath," there must be persistent anti-social behavior. "Anti-social behavior", is another term for certain criminal behaviors. We don't confine someone who is likely to commit a crime, or if their psychologist/psychiatrist says they are likely to commit a crime, UNLESS, they actually have committed a crime or made a threat (innocent until proven guilty).
2. Trust in the system: it is actually caused by the age (alongside of many other possible factors):
Can you cite a study proving this? Many people might say "the brain is not fully developed till 25" and I will link the study, but 1st a quote from the link.
“The researchers speculated in their article that this may be due to a plethora of life experiences in young adulthood such as pursing post-secondary education, starting a career, independence and developing new social and family relationships.”
Elliot Valentin, a retired neuroscientist wrote a book called Blaming the brain, published in 1998. He wrote,
“A persons mental state and experience can modify the brain just as surely as the other way around. When there is a correlation between these two events, we should not assume that we always know which way causation flows….
It has been shown in numerous experiments, for example. That exposure to stressful situations can produce long lasting brain changes.”
And there was a study that showed that even when you're 40 and you become a taxi driver your brain rewires itself and new neurons grow in certain areas to help settle into your new career.
Teens brains are influenced by their outside environment, including schooling, and all teens are required to go to school, so it makes sense that all their brains are the same. Lets compare those brains to the brains of teens in countries where they don't go to school and are married young. We might see a big difference. If it were the norm to finish high school at 25, there would be a new study saying the brain has not matured till 30.
1. And while you could argue that a mathematician needs only mathematics, a football coach needs only sports, etc., this is untrue.
If someone needs a certain skill for their job (excepts for basics like reading and writing, which should be compulsory) they can learn it when they are training for their job.
2. First of all, young people usually are not able to decide which profession they will take.
Then those who have decided can choose to leave high school early go to college.
3. These include rules, regulations, many ethical questions and cultural questions.
Do you have a valid study to prove this? Teens don't think they are bad.
4. Tendency shows that, while breaking rules is common, breaking social norms is even more often.
That is an assumption.
5. As such, if school would not be compulsory, likelihood shows that many teenagers would not continue their education.
College is not compulsory, and many people still continue their education.
6. However, we have to see that many of the core skills are developed in high school.
Then people should be able to choose between high school and college.
1. While there is truth in this, we also must mention that teens take more risk than an adult in case of unknown risks (which is common in real life). [link 8] While this is necessary, taking too much risk causes harmful consequences. This way, runaway law is preventive.
That is not because of age, and I already proved this in the "education" section. You provided a link, but I proved above that risk taking is not because of age. Maybe one can argue that teens (for some reason other then age) are more likely to have factors that make them take risks, you can also argue this with an ethnic group. For example, Asians tend to do better in school, not because they are Asian, because they tend to live in states that offer better educational systems.
- Psychopathy: I am glad that you go into the characteristics of psychopathy, but you apparently did not get the point. This was an . indeed harsh - example. If there are signs for psychopathy, that person is treated medically, and not let to risk others and themselves. This, while does not exactly correspond, has some common things with this - those who are unlikely to report a crime - in our case, a work condition against the laws do harm both for themselves, and for others as well: the employer likely will believe that he can do the same or worse for many other people.
- Lack of trust: the core point is, what I mentioned already, but did not emphasize: this age causes rapid changes, which cause lack of trust. The first is obvious, for both biological and social changes. While biological changes are important, let's concentrate on the social ones. Teenagers have different responsibilities, changing often. These changes, however, create an atmosphere, in which the expectations are unclear - this can easily be seen every day in real life, for example, new employees tend to be unsure what the workplace expects. Quoting Wikipedia: "In psychology, trust is believing that the person who is trusted will do what is expected." [link 1]. This way, without knowing the expectations, it is hard to trust. Another contributing factor is that young people tend to be more negative, while old people are more positive. [link 2]
- Trust in government: nearly the same reasoning goes. We, however, have to add that a huge part of social changes occur in places related to authorities and government: school, responsibilities in laws.
- Taxi driver: certain areas of brain have different "flexibility". To prove this, let's just consider the memory. Even old people can easily retrieve information stored 30-50 years ago, and can exercise this, they occasionally forget what happened the last day. For being a taxi driver, you have to have good spatial vision and reflexes - which often do not even go through brain. [link 3] However, for example, critic thinking will not develop enough - this can be seen via the number of cases, when old people are scammed. [link 2]
- Training to job: you asked whether should not we only train for our jobs. ("Then why does school require we take gym (physical education)? It should be optional, right? And school should just require the basics of what we need for a job. We can do that with less school hours."). The question which is more interesting: what are the basic skills? You say: reading, writing and these things. I, however, believe that much more is needed. The world has changed - we now need not only basic calculations, but statistics, critical thinking, even some economy, and probably even more.
- Early leave: even for them, the decision may not be final. Not to mention the need for the same basic skills.
- Tendencies: first of all, it is interesting that you need studies for common, everyday seen things, while you have not linked much. But see [link 4]. While the link is not only about teenagers, it shows that numerous norm forms exist amongst young people - thus, many have to be nonconformist.
- College: and many don't. And a 14-year old is much different from an 18-year old. It is also unclear that what do you mean about choosing between high school and college. Do you want some people not to have many of their core skills, or to make their timetable full (college takes time, so does high school, therefore, combining the two takes even more). Not to mention that your idea is actually against your original one - you wanted to abolish compulsory high schools, now want to make a decision between high school and college.
- Risk taking is not age-dependent: I have linked already that risk taking is a result of being a teen. Meanwhile, I believe that you have not proven that risk taking is not caused by age - other skills were mentioned. And even if you did so: what would make your link better than mine? Nothing.
- http://youtu.be... (this part lasts for around one minute)
- http://www.law.uchicago.edu... (page 14, in PDF page 16)