Yes. A parent as a child’s guardian is responsible for the child until they formerly revoke guardianship, and the child is considered an adult. A parent that gives birth to a child, claims to be its guardian, and leaves the child in a trash bin has attempted murder.
The real solution is to make the parents productive enough so that they can produce enough for themselves — and for their children. What poor people in India and the like need, are not more humanitarians like Mother Theresa, but more businessman like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. What these countries need is not more government controls, but more freedom.
Passing child labor laws in these countries will not solve the problem, but will only lead to starvation — which is why the “poor” themselves resist such laws. It is primarily for the benefit of the “humanitarians” — that live in capitalist countries — who cry out for these laws that these laws are implemented. Child labor will only cease when parents have the means to support their children.
Capitalism did not create child labor working in fields or factories, but inherited child labor from the previous political systems. Observe in communist Cuba of the 70s/80s, 11-year-old children are forcibly sent off to “summer camps” where they spend time working in fields cutting sugar cane and tobacco (and if pretty they spend time with communist officials.) This is called “volunteerism” (and the joy of women under communism) by collectivists.
Children working in factories was only a transitory stage between early feudalism and capitalism. Before working in factories, before capitalism, many of children had shorter lifespans as evidenced by the high infant mortality statistics before capitalism. The evidence of this is population and infant mortality statistics: population did not go up, and infant mortality did not go down, until the Industrial Revolution. If life was so great before capitalism in the “country,” why was infant mortality so high and population numbers considerably lower before capitalism? Answer: life was not so great until Capitalism.
Throughout history, the parents of most families could not produce enough to support their families without having their children also work. It was the accumulation of capital by the industrialists that made the labor of parents more productive so that children were to stop working in fields or factories. In poor non-capitalist countries, they are still working.
Contrary to leftist rhetoric passing child labor laws in these third-world countries will not solve the problem, but will only lead to starvation — which is why the “poor” themselves resist such laws.
Throughout history, parents could not produce enough to support their families without having their children work also. It was the accumulation of capital by the industrialists that increased the productivity of adults so that children did not have to work in fields or factories. In poor non-capitalist countries, they are still working in fields because the parents are not productive enough to support their children. As economies are becoming freer, thankfully this situation is changing.
Historically, children working in factories (and fields) was only a transitory stage between early feudalism and capitalism. Before working in factories, before the Industrial Revolution, many children (and their parents) used to die and starve, as evidenced by the high infant mortality statistics before the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
Observe that it was not until families left the “country” and went into the “cities” that they were able to produce enough food to eat. The evidence for this is population and infant mortality statistics: population did not go up, and infant mortality did not go down until the Industrial Revolution.
If life was so great before capitalism in the “country,” why was infant mortality so high and population numbers considerably lower before capitalism? Answer: because life was not so great until the Industrial Revolution made its appearance.
The right to dispose of one’s income belongs to the producer, and if he wishes to give it to an heir, a charity, or to flush it down the toilet — that is the producer’s right. It is not any of your concern, and it certainly is not the concern of the government.
As wealth is not a static quantity, to be looted and stolen, the wealth that you can earn is not affected by how much wealth someone else has, creates, or inherits. Since wealth is the result of man’s mind, if someone has a mind, and is left free to use it, wealth is his to create.
As the creation of wealth is not automatic, those who cannot manage their wealth will soon lose it. As evidence of this fact witness what happens when a rich man passes on his money to a worthless heir — the heir soon loses it. Such is the meaning of the saying, “from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.”
Parents do not own their children but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child’s best interest—until the child’s mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.