Should secondary school students be allowed to sell food to other students for profit.

I. The history and practice of trade. Trade is believed to have taken place throughout much of recorded human history. There is evidence of the exchange of obsidian and flint during the Stone Age. [1] Materials used for creating jewelry were traded with Egypt since 3000 BCE. [2][3] Long-range trade routes first appeared in the 3rd millennium BCE, when Sumerians in Mesopotamia traded with the Harappan civilization of the Indus Valley. [4][5][6]The reason I believe it is important to share the basics of trade is because what is occurring in these schools is no different from what has been occurring as a part of the human experience for the last 5,000 years. Trade created the opportunity for an exchange of ideas, cultures, traditions, and eventually became a vital factor in diplomacy. Without trade, the expansion and development of civilization would have most likely taken much longer considering that trade allowed for certain civilizations to acquire materials that would otherwise be unobtainable. Only by understanding the historical value and instilled tradition that humans have, in terms of trade, can we truly begin to understand why kids might be so prone to conducting trades amongst themselves. If anything, I would say that these children are doing nothing more than developing the skills that truly will be necessary later in life. This also brings me to my second argument. .. [1] . http://www.ancient.eu.com... [2] . http://www.ancient.eu.com...[3] . http://www.historyofjewelry.net...[4] . http://www.ancienttrenches.com...[5] . http://www.penn.museum...[6] . http://www.historyworld.net...II. These kids are doing nothing more than mimicking the adults and society they were born into. When originally accepting this debate, I did so understanding that this would provide a certain challenge because I have never lived in or attended school in England. While researching the trade laws for England, I noticed that they are incredibly similar to our own domestic trade laws in America. In terms of basic trade standards, whether it be services for goods or goods for money - there is no real difference, aside from taxation which is not relevant to my argument nor this resolution at hand. Ultimately, both England and the U. S. practice Capitalism - and that is what is truly relevant here. Capitalism is defined as: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. [7]With this in mind, I would also like to point out that Humans are naturally prone to a herd mentality. [8] We learn by experience and observation, we follow the flow of the crowd, and we usually organize our system of morals and values according to the society we were raised in. Considering that England is a society where a free market exists, where capitalism is practiced [9], and where merchants are easily found all around the region - is it truly that difficult to see why children would be mimicking these actions while in school? With it being known that this practice is only an issue at a school where the practice is banned, I truly see no moral issues with children mimicking the actions of the society they will soon be living in as adults. If they are breaking the rules, then their punishment is just. .. I am simply stating the importance of understanding that these actions are nothing more than acts of mimicry originating from the society they were born into and live in. [7] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[8] . http://psychcentral.com...[9] . http://himedo.net...III. Unless a school specifically bans the practice, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed. The resolution asks if students should be allowed to sell food to other students for profit. In terms of legality, I see no issue with this. If there is a willing buyer, and a demand for a product - the merchant has every right in England to sell the buyer the goods. In terms of morality, which in itself is purely relative, it is up to both parties involved to come to terms with the transaction. Taking this into consideration, if a school bans the practice of students selling other students goods, then by all means the students should respect the rules. But this is not a debate about schools banning the practice, which would be a whole other topic, this is a debate asking if students should be allowed to. In terms of both legality and morality, I believe it is a action that should be allowed and left up to the parties involved to determine the parameters of the trade. IV. When it comes to trading food, students are intelligent enough to decide for themselves. Secondary schools in England usually educate students who range from the ages of 12 - 18. Children in England are legally required to attend secondary schools from the ages of 12 - 15. [10]This is a very important factor to consider when determining if secondary school students should be allowed to sell food for profits i. e. - take part in the practice of trade. If these students were unable to make intelligent decisions for themselves that is one thing, but to think that 12 - 18 year olds aren't capable of making such a decision is nothing more than an unfair assessment of their mental abilities. One example of this would be the average intelligence scores of black children in England. Between the ages of 12 - 18, the average score ranges from 92.5 to 87.2. [11] This is considered average intelligence by current IQ test standards [12] which most certainly includes the ability to make reasonable decisions. I would also consider the ability to discern between healthy and unhealthy foods as a mental ability achievable by those with average intelligence. The only argument I can see would be that students don't care about health and want only what tastes good or junk food - which is also a debate within itself that would be deserving of it's own topic and ultimately irrelevant here. [10] . https://www.internations.org...[11] . http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com...[12] . http://psychology.about.com...Rebuttals I. ". .. these children who are selling such items are being able to get away with selling their items for more than double what they paid. "While one might argue that this is morally wrong, I stand by the fact that morals are ultimately relative and would be subject to the standards of both parties involved. This is the risk of trade, and under capitalism the seller has the right to sell the goods for a price that reasonably matches the demand. No-one is forcing these students to purchase the food, they are doing it willingly on their own accord. If both the buyer and seller have come to an agreement, it is implied that they are both satisfied with the parameters of the transaction. The only exclusion would be if it is a purchase made under duress, but this is not the case. II. "I feel that these students who are selling these products are exploiting the other students quite badly, in which they know that they are. They are also breaking many rules of my school's code in which they are not respecting other students by exploiting them. "Yes but the buyers are willing to purchase the goods without being forced, this fails to meet the standards of exploitation and disrespectful acts towards fellow students. . ..