I guess the implicit definition in my previous example is; "more able to make long term decisions that won't obviously result in your misery or death."

It's not about control or shaming. Kids are obviously more fun when they have their own minds and desires and can think for themselves. And an essential part of growing up is expermenting and making mistakes.

But what shouldn't be in any way controversial is that the quality of that thinking for a 10 year old is not at the same level as it will be when they're 20. And that it's a parents responsibity to try to steer their children away from serious, potentially life-impacting mistakes.

"We" is society. You act as if there's no consensus amongst human beings on anything, when there's actually consenus on quite a lot. "We" agree that adults shouldn't have sex with children for example. Even though some disagree (or do it anyway). And those who do disagree are treated as pariahs because if we normalised or accepted that behaviour, many children would suffer. This is the logic behind the existence of rules. Again, "we" don't always get it right. No argument there. But anarchy is not, therefore, the answer.

Thanks. I appreciate you reading and commenting.