[Old Professer]

Nothing is without risk, my mom used to tease my sister and me by saying we couldn't go in the water until we learned to swim.

What we have here is a conflict of first-interest; to what extent does the state's franchise trump the freedom of the parent or the child?

If it is imputed by association and licensure the contract is made; if it is denied implicitly and factually the state must prove its case.

[Modernman]

What we have here is a conflict of first-interest; to what extent does the state's franchise trump the freedom of the parent or the child?

I'm comfortable with giving the state the power to step in and prevent parents from having their kids engage in physically dangerous activities. By physically dangerous, I don't mean activities that might lead to cuts, bruises or potentially broken bones, but activities that can potentially cause major injuries or death.

Allowing kids to work on construction sites clearly falls under this definition.

If it is imputed by association and licensure the contract is made; if it is denied implicitly and factually the state must prove its case.

I'm not sure I follow.