Ah I see, you are one of those who assume
"To give freedom = let them die in an accident".
Obviously, the conclusion doesnt follow, as letting children die in an accident destroys their freedom, it doesnt uphold it.
You accussed me of having libertarian views, which I consider an insult to my intelligence.
Really, a libertarian doesnt even understand how society works or how society survives.
Freedom means, according to commonly understood meaning, greatest equal options.
To achieve that, survival is necessary except in cases of voluntary self-termination.
Now, when I say that children should have freedom, I mean that children should be given a choice and options, like anyone else.
Just as we would save anyone else from dying in an accident, so we would save children.
Now, what I oppose to is "parent-commander" person who assumes they can:
1. Control what child says
2. Control how child behaves
3. Control what child eats
4. Force child to do things child doesnt want to do
Greatest equal options do not eliminate parent's need to care for children.
Quite the opposite, greatest equal options are not really possible if children arent cared for.
Libertarians (yuck) interpreted greatest equal freedom as "freedom of parents not to feed children",
a dumb interpretation, one must say.
In fact, it achieves opposite of greatest equal freedom, but libertarians arent exactly famous for bright ideas.
