Finally, freedom of choice for children is coming!

[Mo~]

For me it comes down to the fact that I, their mother, am the one who knows my child better than anyone else. I am the one who knows that my sister had a severe allergic reaction to the copper in her IUD and, since she was born from the same parents that I was, my child should probably be tested for metal allergies to insure she gets the proper kind if she wants one. I know I have bad reactions to flu shots but have never been taken down by the flu, so it may not be worth it for them to get them, but if they do get one, I need to be watching over them in case it doesn't work out so well. I know I have suffered severe migraine attacks which run in my family, so we need to be careful about the kinds of things my children are exposed to in order to avoid problems for them. I know my father was a schizophrenic and that it tends to skip generations and that I had a really, really bad reaction to Chantix, so we best be careful what types of drugs they may be put on and keep a close eye on them if they are put on meds that could cause dementia.

I've also been accused of "false imprisonment" for grounding them, "abuse" for expecting them to behave like civilized human beings in public and "emotional abuse" for telling my eldest she was looked like a slut and making her change her outfit when she was 13 years old only to have her thank me later when she was 17 yrs old and one of the girls at school was being treated like a slut because she dressed like a slut.

I am also the one who will run into a burning building to get them out and I am the one who will kick the ass of anyone who would pull me out before them. Gawd help anyone who would perform any type of medical treatment on my underage child without my knowledge.

[lnrw]

[Precocity]

[Precocity]

[lnrw]

[exploited]

[exploited]

[lnrw]

[exploited]

Look at something like anti-trust legislation. History has shown, thousands of times, that without such legislation, the natural course of the market is towards monopolies.

This is a clear negative outcome, to which the libertarian would respond, well, don't buy their product. This does no good whatsoever to those without the financial ability to pursue alternatives... a poor person has neither the time nor the education nor the resources to take on an oil monopoly, who would be free to charge whatever they liked, and free to use legitimate contractual agreements to ensure no alternatives became possible.

In other words, the average person would be totally beholden to the good graces of such a monopoly... and any attempt to form an alternative would be ruthlessly destroyed by entrenched financial power, using perfectly legal contracts as their weapon.

Could this be addressed over the long term? Maybe. But again, you'd be accepting negative outcomes on the premise that change is possible, even when that is clearly not the case.

[lnrw]