Obviously not. The question remains of who gets to shape and control their identity and future.
Is the purpose of their lives to serve the interests of the state, or society at large? Or should they be live their lives based on their own interests and priorities.
the libertarian perspective is that if you grant the state and society the authority to control the child, it will use that authority to advance the interests of the state or society.
you were 16 and coping with the death of your mother. nobody should be given that kind of responsibility to set up their finances. how much did they teach you about finances by 16? if that money was set up in a trust for you that dispersed income over time or directly paid rent then that probably would have been very helpful.
It's very obvious now that unionized workers are better off than non-unionized workers in the same industry, and far far better off than contract workers.
Any "profitably" run PE company is being sold for parts and its wiring is being stripped. Good job being better than a charlatan startup. Your employer provides nothing of value to society.
This is just completely and laughably wrong. You have no idea how many companies are now owned by PE, and the vast majority of them are run as solid, sensible businesses for five years and then sold again. You have bought into some caricature of what the PE world means.
I wonder if it's also simply selection bias, they only see the failures, because the successes are invisible. I know some tradespeople who set up their own practices and sold it to PE, and the practices are running similarly as before.
