Thanks for the calm and cogent reply.

You're very welcome. Calm and cogent will elicit the same in response from me :-)

When it comes to children, I don't think it's good to set some grand standard of liberty that is independent of human values.

It depends on what those values are, I would say, before the debate on that started. For instance, are the values all about decorum and custom, and have little or nothing to do with actually preventing demonstrable harm? And if one suggests otherwise, is the real 'harm' primarily that which is done to someone's personal sensibilities, or their conception of the "proper place" that person should have in society over and above individual merits? Hence, some notions of liberty have to be inalienable and above any arbitrary standard.

I have argued that parents are generally the best people to watch out for a child's interest, but sometimes the state must override the combined desires of parents and child.

In many cases, the close emotional bond that parents have with their children can preclude their ability to make truly objective opinions, especially in situations that are highly emotionally charged. Moreover, some parents are outright unscrupulous - as are some people from any particular demographic group - and thus will be blatantly looking out for their own interests when making decisions regarding their children; many parents who are generally good people will tend to do the same, while pretending they are looking out for the best interest of the child.

As for the state overriding the desires of kids (or parents), I would say that should only happen if the individuals in question are seeking to demonstrably harm others; or to demonstrably infringe upon the freedom of choice of others. The state, if it must exist at any given time, should always seek to be secular in matters of moralism and values that do not coincide with notions of liberty.

I've mentioned before the 6-year-old in a divorce case who is likely to choose a parent who lets him indulge every whim and sets no rules.

That depends on what the limits are to, and what particular rules.

For example: Rules against playing the radio too loud at night, and thus keeping everyone in the house awake, makes perfect sense. Rules against hitting or assaulting other people in situations that do not involve self-defense make perfect sense. Rules against running in the middle of the street without looking make perfect sense. Rules against playing soccer in a narrow driveway where several windows are likely to get broken as a result makes perfect sense. Rules against getting too close to the fire on a grill make perfect sense. Rules against bringing individuals into the house who are known to steal or act extremely disrespectful to the occupants make perfect sense.

On the other hand: Rules to prevent a child from hanging around with friends simply because they are black or Jewish do not make sense. Rules to prevent a child from reading material containing ideologies parents do not want their kids to know anything about for personal reasons do not make sense. Rules to prevent children from seeking out certain types of education or studies so they can make informed decisions about something because their parents do not want them to do it regardless of their merits for personal reasons (e.g., the parents' moral stance) do not make sense. Rules intended to force their children to practice the parents' religious rituals of the child does not want to does not make sense.

Regarding the assignment of chores: Expecting kids to learn to be responsible by cleaning up after themselves, helping to keep the floor clean by sweeping, etc., is very reasonable; after all, if parents have to do certain chores, so should their kids share and thus lessen the burden for all. But turning them into virtual slave labor, as some parents do, is not.

As for limits: Insisting on a limit to how much junk food they eat makes sense, because their health is demonstrably at issue. Insisting on limits to how much they can play video games simply to exercise authority is not reasonable.

In other words, kids will naturally want to stay with a parent who is less inclined to be a bully (i.e., abuse their authority) or a jerk, and more inclined to treat them as human beings and to consider their feelings in any given matter, even if "inferior" in terms of rights. Parents who give respect are more likely to receive it; they are not exempt from this basic rule of general human dynamics. And they will do much more for parents whom they respect rather than parents whom they simply fear because they're abusive or quick to punish or set unreasonable limits just because they can.

All people, including kids, have to learn to abide by certain rules. But if the rules are not reasonable, then you need to expect people of all ages to rebel, even if covertly at times.

I can mention now a 10-year-old girl who decides she wants her clitoris and surrounding tissues cut off.

And since this disgusts you, she should be assumed to not be making this decision for any good reason?

I can mention a 10-year-old who likes free samples of heroin.

This brings up the issue of whether or not recreational drug use should be legal or not, regardless of whether or not it's agreed that it's an inherently "bad" thing to do under any type of circumstance. The assumption you seem to be espousing here is that someone who is 10, regardless of individual knowledge or experience, must never be given the benefit of the doubt when making such decisions. No other factors are mentioned here; only the age of the person, and the type of drug (oh, and the fact he/she wanted a free sample rather than paying for it, I suppose). I think with these examples, you are deliberately "fishing" for the most extreme and personally distasteful hypoethical choices you can think of, because you realize that emotional strings must be pulled in order to get people to turn against a stance for freedom. This often works even when it's employed against adults, as every politician is well aware of.

For example: "Okay, you can talk all the crap you want about homosexual freedom, but how would you feel if it was your little brother or your son being involved in those acts?"

I can mention a 7-year-old who accepts his parents' religion and thinks it is appropriate if he is severely beaten when the devil makes him disobey his parents.

I can mention women in some society's, both in the past and present, who believed their husbands had the right to literally beat them to death if they displeased their male spouses enough. Or that their father always knew what was "best" for them if he, and he alone, picked their husband for them. These are matters of societal upbringing. Hence, education and a stance for individual freedoms resolve these types of problems, rather than making them worse, as I believe you are conjecturing.

And now I can also mention a girl who likes the idea of her parents prostituting her for extra family income.

If girls will not pretend to "like" their parents forcing them to brush their teeth at a certain time; or not to hang out with certain friends that they really like, etc., can we truly and logically expect a girl to think she "likes" her parents forcing her to do something she doesn't want to do in the type of example you used?

As I noted, a stance on freedom makes people less likely to tolerate - or feel they have to tolerate - demonstrable harm inflicted upon them, rather than the reverse. Will they invariably make decisions we do not approve of? Yes, but that, alas, is the "price" we pay for freedom: having to practice a "live and let live" policy with others.

We can leave it to our readers to decide which vision they would like to support.

That, I would argue, depends upon how much of a value the individual reader places on principle over personal moral beliefs; and how logical they feel your extreme hypothetical examples are to occur if the readers in question are not easily led by their emotions.