Thanks for the calm and cogent reply.

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.

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.

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. I can mention now a 10-year-old girl who decides she wants her clitoris and surrounding tissues cut off. I can mention a 10-year-old who likes free samples of heroin. 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. And now I can also mention a girl who likes the idea of her parents prostituting her for extra family income.

Idealistic notions of liberty would support all of those children -- more crucially, it would support the adults who help those children carry out those decisions. For anyone who is willing to accept those consequences, then I have no further argument to make. (I would, with a wince in some cases support the right of adults to do all those things to themselves.)

I think society inevitably brings moral values to bear on particular questions relating to acceptable treatment of children. The issues are often difficult and complicated. If I think a set of changes in society will lead to lots of children choosing prostitution, and I don't like that idea, then I think it is entirely appropriate to argue against such changes.

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