"If there was good evidence for the above claim, then parents and the state would not be struggling so hard to maintain control of younger people... just as their equivalents (e.g., men, slave plantation owners) struggled in the past to retain control over other minority groups."

Agreed.

A sign of desperation is the ever-increasing lower shift in hysteria over lost "childhood."

When all the talking heads are arguing that a 17 year old Britney is being "sexualized," or that 17 year olds who have children are "babies having babies," then we see that they are resisting by pushing back against those who were recognizably adults in previous generations.

* A little wild speculation *

I think that this is a reaction towards loss of ownership over adult children.

200 years ago it was virtually unthinkable that a young man's career path and choice of spouse would've been his own to make against his parents wishes.

We legally parsed the free adult from the "child" who must heed their parents wishes. At this point, deference is not based upon being the younger adult nor the adult offspring of a citizen in good standing. Adult deference seen as an impediment to legitimate adulthood.

So any young adult that the parent wishes to control must first be deemed a child; even if they weren't in the past. And the adult-child break must be clean and absolute with only the fully capable on one side and only the incompetent on the other.

( Never minding all the devaluing of protections for incapable adults that this promotes. )

"If their concern was truly genuine, they would expend far less disproportionate resources towards regulating underagers' sexual lives and expression compared to eliminating poverty, neglect,"

Again, the defenders of the "benevolent and wise" society must, in choosing to prioritize the evils of youth sexuality ( by banning all emancipation ) over poverty, completely overlook "survival sex." The enforced poverty of children places them at greater risk of coercive sex and prostitution than if they had a right to a living ( whether through your Communist means or even through true Laissez Faire. ) Poverty is bad enough. Legally impoverishing the child by denying them the right to own anything which is theirs just places them at the mercy of an adult ( who may demand sex or celibacy as a condition of support. )

"It's the classic difference of "freedom to..." vs. "freedom from..."

Well, now you're just being ethically literate. Stop that. ;p

Another distinction few make are "negative rights" and "positive rights."

Negative rights require nothing from others than that they leave me alone. Positive rights require something from another in order to be fulfilled.

The right to not be hungry is a positive right as it requires food if one is lacking. The right to free speech is a negative right because if those trying to muzzle me accidentally oversleep and do nothing, I get to talk.

"And also considering they ( liberals ) were very anti-homosexual during the 1950s and '60s, before it became politically "acceptable" for mainstream liberals to embrace gay rights."

In historical terms thats the "old Left" vs the "New Left." The old Left were mostly defined by Labor clashes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The new left by Civil Rights, the Sexual Revolution and the Anti-War movement.

In Europe, where Communists were still regularly elected as aldermen and mayors, sometimes the "greatest generation" stood in the way against social change, but in other moments, such as May '68, establishment labor joined with student protest in order to create a general strike.

One can only speculate whether Labor wouldn't have been as "conservative" as it was if the mob hadn't taken it over to the degree they did in America.

"Idealism is often the word given to common sense that people do not want to embrace because it inconveniences those in power or those who are too apathetic to fight for change. Notice how young people are often dismissed as "idealistic" when they are willing to embrace change?"

It is also the dismissal of the simple as "simplistic."

Which is the better check on the excesses of sovereigns, the Magna Carta, or the abolition of a monarchy.

Certainly to the "realist and pragmatist" hammering out an accord with subclause after subclause and signatories seems more weighty than just not recognizing an illegitimate authority. And it sure has more appeal in the eyes of those who only want the most incremental steps and argue that society is not ready for fundamental change.

But we just need to compare the effects of reigning in the abuses of the sovereign in the centuries after the Magna Carta with the ill effects of the abuses of Kingly power in those governments with the idealist notion that society could survive without a regent.

"Legal empowerment--which is an actual concept liberals are supposed to respect, your quotation marks notwithstanding--entitles a group of people to acquire education and knowledge on any subject they may want or need. It's thus very important towards building their awareness of any given facet of life."

True.

At present parents can keep children from information they deem harmful so long as they meet the requirements to homeschool.

Of course the present public school system is about cultivating obedience, not about educating the child to question things for themself. And there are other motives for homeschooling. But a significant one is the desire to keep some legitimate info away from one's offspring.

There's nothing preventing the parents from withholding as much information from a child as is legally permissible. In most districts all it takes is a religious exception to deny the child even the most rudimentary info based on sex-positive sex-ed.

But hey, "most parents want what's best" blah, blah blah.

For another fictional take on what lopsided presumptions about victimhood can do in the wrong hands, check out the film Gone Girl.

Not only are the principal characters amazing, but Missi Pyle deserves a best supporting actress nomination for a spot on portrayal of Not-Nancy-Grace.

An awesome film, which along with last year's nominated Danish film The Hunt, shows just what happens when justice is trumped by protectionist hysteria which has already determined right and wrong based on the demographics of the accused and the accuser.

Dante