>I'm honestly sorry to tell you this: the experiment didn't work. Turns out when we took away the reason for private interests to be interested in these children, the lives of the children didn't improve
I'm not sure where you had this experience. In the US and Europe, when child labor (and children prostitutes) was abolished, circa late 19th - early 20th century, the lives of children improved greatly.
In countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America where it's still either allowed or authorities turn a blind eye, not so much.
Moreover, the very idea of "let the kids be raped for money, lest they starve to death, it's the least we can do" is sick.
1) Provide opportunity for street children to survive, and then ban exploitation of those children.
2) Ban exploitation of children, and ignore them as they die.
3) Leave it alone.
I'm saying we must choose 1 or 3. We must not pick 2. It is criminal. However, in developing countries in Africa, we have picked 2! Picking 2 is the "worst" we can do out of all possible options. It's sickening, and far too many people are still advocating for it.
Authorities in Africa and Asia no longer turn a blind eye because of grant money linked to abolishing child labour. People like you have forced that on them. And the children are now suffering far worse than before. You've made yourself feel better at the expense of those you wanted to help.
I'm not sure where you had this experience. In the US and Europe, when child labor (and children prostitutes) was abolished, circa late 19th - early 20th century, the lives of children improved greatly.
In countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America where it's still either allowed or authorities turn a blind eye, not so much.
Moreover, the very idea of "let the kids be raped for money, lest they starve to death, it's the least we can do" is sick.
It's not by any means the "least" we can do.