Re: You missed my point

You are twisting my words. How can youth emancipation truly exist under the current system if the state did not enforce those rights? As long as we continue to live under a state, we are going to have to rely on the state to support our civil rights. What I am saying is that if parents insist their kids do not go out at a certain time, the kids should still be allowed to do so. Parents should not have the power to force emancipated kids to stay in the house, either with their bare hands or at gunpoint. How can you say that force is wrong when used by the state but perfectly okay if parents do it?

If the state didn't enforce parental authority, then parental authority could not exist. A kid could walk out of the house, and if the parent couldn't catch them, there would be no way for the parent to force them back in the house. If a child chose to run away and live somewhere else, without the power of the state backing them up the parent would not be able to retrieve the child without the use of force via their own hands, and without the state supporting them on this, the force of just two people could be countered.

I think it was very clear that I was arguing for no authority over emancipated young people, not one authority taking the place of another over the kids. You seem to be arguing that without state intervention in the lives of emancipated youths, parents would retain authority by default. That would not be the case at all. The point is, I would support the state using counter-force against any attempt by parents to force their kids to go to school, not to work, etc., just as I would expect the police to stop you from using force to try to infringe upon my civil rights to do or not do these things. It's really not too hard to understand.