The context of this thread is access to information, so that was the implied context of my comment. But to be clear: I agree that the state is right to intervene in the parent/child relationship in cases of physical abuse.

But then the State is implicitly deciding morality by deciding what is and isn't abuse. It's engaging in censorship, and is subject to corruption, as was and is my government in the Deep South. It's actively hostile towards information.

Literally just last month, we as a city came together and narrowly avoided the city passing a sneak ballot that was going to remove a lot of funding from our public libraries and redirect it towards police retirement funds. They even tried to repress our vote by making it a parish-wide vote instead of a city-wide vote, inviting in people who were ignorant of the consequences of the ballot but easily swayed by local identity politics.

Libraries are in danger, and it's precisely because they provide things that our local governments, and the current rogue federal government which they massively support, and their generationally brainwashed constituents, don't want people like me and other pacifists and archivists to access and share.

Ah, I see you are in EBR parish. Congratulations from NOLA on voting down the proposal. We did our part with the constitutional amendments but I won't be in this state for much longer. I thought that EBR parish and BR city were coterminous however?

Hey, thanks, everyone was pretty nervous but we came together :)

There is Zachary, St. George, Baker, Central and Baton Rouge. This is one of the games these cities sometimes play in order to sway local elections. I too will be leaving the state again soon once things line up. I hope you find a community that you feel connected to.

Probably eastern seaboard - I have spent over a decade in New Orleans and while I love it I don’t think it really loves me back and I haven’t really developed deep long lasting ties beyond the family I already had here.

I meant abusive in the general sense, including overt restrictions in access to information.

My hypothetical parents behind Rawls' Veil should not be able to prevent me from learning about evolution to give a concrete example.

Are you willing to take the inversion of your position: that you should have no ability to control what information the state exposes your children to?

What about media with sexual content? Or content that promotes creationism or the idea that there are two biological sexes, which were created by God?

My position is balance between the family and the state for the maximal benefit of the child.

Also the balance should be towards access to information. There is no symmetry between exposure to harmful ideas and restricting good ones. With your example of two biological sexes created by God it is pretty easy to explain that the reality is more nuanced. If parents restrict access to information and the state doesn't intervene, the harm is bigger.

To what degree should the state be able to intervene if parents are preventing their children from access to the truth? Should homeschooling be allowed? Should children be taken from their parents? Should parents who don’t agree with certain content be compelled to fund distribution of that content via public libraries?

In other words, good things are good and bad things are bad.

It's astonishing how many people (or bots) in 2025 talk as if the only allowed positions are "the state is good" or "the state is bad" and "parents are good" or "parents are bad", like they have no ability to recognize when individual separate actions are good or bad.