Marcy,
Couldn't (and don't) statists employ similar logic to justify
exercising tyrannical controls over large segments of the population?
"People on welfare [or corporations receiving subsidies, people using
government services, etc.] have all the rights in the world when/if
they pay their own rent, buy their own food, [build their own roads,
stay in "their" own country, provide their own defense against
terrorism, etc.] etc. Otherwise, they have the rights of life and
protection from harm, as well as any other right the State decides is
best."
What seems most objectionable to me however is not the idea that
parents should be legally empowered to make many decisions for
dependent young people below a certain age, but three somewhat related
infringements:
(1) In many jurisdictions, people well past puberty are legally
classified as "children" under many circumstances,
(2) Those people legally classified as children (aka "minors", a
somewhat belittling term) who choose to take responsibility for their
own lives (or at least to do so as much as is expected of "normal
adults" in society), are denied a clear and simple procedure by which
to legally emancipate themselves, and
(3) In cases where no parental wishes have been expressed with regard
to the freedoms of a specific dependent -- nay even in cases where
parents explicitly state that they wish their dependents to enjoy full
legal rights -- young people in many jurisdictions are legally denied
numerous important rights, including the rights to work in most
occupations, to vote, to enter contracts, to drive motor vehicles, to
have sexual relations, to engage in various recreational activities
(e.g. amusement park rides), to watch certain movies and view certain
images, to marry, to drink alcohol, to be in establishments where
alcohol is served, etc.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))