You make a number of very good points. Where is it appropriate for the government to step in for a child's own good? Some answers are clear: if the parents are physically abusing the child (real abuse, not spankings), the child should be taken away. Some areas are controversial, such as those where parents refuse a child a medical procedure for religious reasons.

But if the state is given too much power in this area, it can be subject to abuse. Forcing a child into a particular school because he is not getting enough math at home is just a very small step away from forcing him there because he's not getting the right politics.

This is one of those areas where there are no easy answers, but if I have to be mistaken, I would prefer to be mistaken in the direction of individual rights. Where there is freedom, there are going to be people who abuse it. I still think such abuse is the exception rather than the rule.

* * *

As far as building codes go, one of the toughest concepts I have to get across in these discussions is that the alternatives are not just government and chaos. Just because you need rules doesn't mean you need to have a government making them.

Just as one example, one concept that could work is a private organization that writes codes and certifies buildings for a fee. A certified building gets to have the organization's "seal of approval." The Underwriter's Laboratory works kind of this way for appliances. Any smart consumer would look for this certification before buying a building. Ideally, there would be several competing organizations like this. Each one, of course, would be constantly on the lookout for corruption in the other organizations so as to be able to knock them out of business. A high quality builder may get his building certified by more than one such outfit.

This idea would work in many areas of consumer protection, but such organizations are very rare now because with the massive government regulation there is no incentive for them to exist.