[southern rock]

Also, I think it's a matter of degree: for example, if a child is being molested by his/her parents, you're saying that the government cannot pass a law against some actions? If so, why not? You can argue that your protecting the "individual" child's rights, but nonetheless you contradict your statement regarding "no obligation."

Molestation is an assault. A violation of the child's individual rights (as you correctly pointed out). It is a legitimate function of the state and the law to punish that action.

[aconservaguy]

Molestation is an assault. A violation of the child's individual rights (as you correctly pointed out). It is a legitimate function of the state and the law to punish that action.

It is a legitimate function of the "state" to punish molestation (or assault). Ok. But isn't there a contradiction between the "state" punishing the parent(s), and the idea that there is "no obligation" of the parents to "listen" to the state (supposing that the parents "choose" to "raise" their children that way)? Could clarify what you mean by "no obligation" for the parents to "listen" in the raising of the child? My interpratation of that is that if there is "no obligation" to listen, then there is "no obligation" to obey.

Also, what reason(s) underly the legitimacy of "state" action regarding individual rights? Where do such ideas come from?