I have often found your views on youth liberation some of the most far-fetched of what you espouse.

You find them "far-fetched" because you disagree with them. Just like ending chattel slavery in American and giving women the vote were once considered "far-fetched" notions.

Let's put the "anti" out of the picture, and just talk about mainstream society's views on issues related to youth liberation, setting aside adult-child sex completely.

Anti views are essentially mainstream views. The difference between the so-designated anti and the average mainstream thinker is not so much their worldview as their overall behavior. Unlike antis, the average status quo supporter does not spend large portions of their personal time publicly attacking and engaging MAPs.

So, just how common is the story of the teen who begs their parents not to drive them around so much but insists they would rather walk or stay home? Ring a bell? Not to me. People use automobiles because of convenience and make a trade-off for safety.

Which shows precisely how their lack of concern for the great danger that over-reliance on the personal automobile presents for both their demographic and that of children makes it clear their concern for the well-being of kids falters when the topic isn't about sexual expression or activity of some sort. And since kids do not have a voice in the political apparatus (a situation just now beginning to change), they too are stuck with the decisions made by adults as to how society in general is run.

Adults and kids both bear the costs and the benefits.

But kids have to bear the costs entirely at the behest of adults, without their own input. If a superior form of public transportation was available, and kids were not forced to rely on their parents' permission in order to afford it, they would likely choose to take it, especially since they may have to get to certain places that are too far to walk, and they would rather not be stuck staying at home.

Young male drivers are responsible for a huge proportion of auto fatalities. If youth liberationists had their way, younger teen males in great numbers would drive and increase fatalities even more. Surely you couldn't deprive any individual teen male of his liberty based on what other members of his class might do?

If youth liberationists had their way, we likely wouldn't be relying so much on the personal automobile, and neighborhood design would be improved so that auto fatalities would be greatly diminished compared to what they are today. Adults outside the youth liberation movement are clearly in no hurry to implement or even consider these changes, which makes it clear where their priorities lie (convenience and resistance to change).

Also, certain ethnic groups have much higher degrees of auto fatalities than any other adult demographic, due to a variety of factors related to rates of alcohol consumption that are in turn connected to other specific cultural factors. I'm sure if bigots had their way, then adult members of these ethnic groups (e.g., Native Americans; Irish) would be denied the same rights to drive as other groups. But that's not considered, because it would be discrimination. And since the adults among these groups enjoy their full civil liberties, you do not see liberals actually rationalizing the denial of these driving rights. Which is why youth liberationists suggest democratic solutions that do not openly rationalize demographic-based discrimination.

Lots of adults lack emotional intelligence.

Yet except in extreme and unusual cases, they all enjoy their civil rights, and tend to be judged on their individual merits.

Lots of them lead lives with a lot of stress. Children can be demanding and uncooperative and difficult as a natural part of childhood and adolescence.

These difficulties are exacerbated due to the fact that kids are often forced to adhere to unfair rules that are arbitrarily-based and not actually connected to their well-being, along with the state making this even worse by demanding mandatory schooling in a system that is extremely standardized and draining to many kids (a situation that is just beginning to change, thanks to the advent of the Unschooling movement by open-minded parents, and alternative methods of education beginning to emerge). This is made worse still by the fact that society currently expects parents to be solely responsible for their kids outside of school, rather than allowing the entire community to lend a hand. These stresses on both parents and kids are due to the increasingly insular nature of the nuclear family unit. The stress factor works both ways; under the current regime both parents and kids become mutually difficult to deal with due to both being under this type of stress.

Bad things will happen, and it is really unfortunate. But it's a sure bet that if we only allowed couples to have children if they were pre-screened for emotional intelligence, economic well-being, patience in the face of stress and being nice people, world population would plummet fast. It would also be a grave violation of the most basic of human liberties.

Yes, we are very concerned about violations of civil liberties when the demographic in question are legal adults, right? When someone is not a legal adult, however, then such considerations are swept under the rug with full rationalizations.

But besides that matter, who on this board is suggesting that any adults should be pre-screened in such a manner? What youth liberationists are saying instead is that kids should have the right to extricate themselves from the emotionally challenged parents who are chronic bullies once it turns out these parents are like that and cannot achieve a harmonious co-habitation. Sometimes these separations can be temporary if it's possible to work things out with the help of open-minded counselors.