> 1. The right to say "no" without repercussions beyond "not getting paid".

Have you ever had parents? I realize it's outside the Overton window to do anything about it, but age-based slavery[0] is ubiquitous and the legal default in essentially (I think literally) every country on Earth. It's an even more pervasive affliction than copyright, so I find your ignorance implausible.

0: in the ownership sense; actually using them for forced labor is less common

Can you please not do this sort of nitpicky-flamey argument on HN? It's the kind of discussion we're trying to avoid here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

My comment was about kids mowing neighborhood lawns, not their own.

Please try to address the argument I actually made.

I was; my comment was about the purported lack of repercussions for disobediance.

Also, you were responding to:

> a teenager mowing the lawn for their parents

which was about their (owner's) own lawn.

The full quote I was responding to is:

>>>> What's the difference between a teenager mowing the lawn for their parents and someone paid to mow a lawn?

In response to which, I said:

>>> The kid getting paid to mow neighborhood lawns has:

Selective quoting tends to change the context a bit, don't you think?