Q: Is it wrong or unfair to remind a teen that while independence is great and you the parent are encouraging it, you, the parent, are paying for everything, or close to everything, so the teen has an obligation to at least listen to your views? I realize that this comes close to imposing an unchosen 'duty' on the teen's part. On the other hand, it is (usually) the case that the teen is not paying for much, if anything.

A: What parents of teens should NOT do is lecture the teen that, "I take care of you, I gave you food and shelter, so you owe me." Children do not ask to be born. They come into the world because of the choice the parents make to have them – and raise them. Helpless children are entitled to have food, shelter and a rational, nurturing environment that fosters intellectual growth. The rest is up to the child-turned-adult, starting in young adulthood (i.e. the teenage years). The teenager is in the wrong when he or she claims entitlement to the nicest things money can buy – that is, things that are desired but not needed to live. The parent, first of all, might not be able to afford them; even if the parent can afford something the teen wants, but does not actually need, the parent is not obliged to buy it. A sports car or a designer label, or the very latest iPod, are not entitlements. If the parent is able and willing to provide some of these optional things, then fine – but even then it should not be presented as an entitlement. It should be presented as, "I love you and I can afford to buy this for you; so I'm doing it."

In order to be rational about this issue, parents must objectively distinguish between "want" and "need." The teenager may claim that a "want" is actually a "need." The parent must be prepared to inform the teenager that he or she is wrong. This won't make the parent popular, but it will make for a more realistic and less entitled-feeling young adult. Unfortunately, many parents of teens do not take this approach. That's why America has become a society filled with too many adults who feel entitled to whatever they want, a society headed by a politician and his band of thugs hell-bent on destroying our economic system in order to perpetuate this delusion for another few years. The parents who refuse to cave in, and who dare to treat their young adult children as if they are exactly that – young ADULTS – are among the unsung heroes of our society, with respect to family relations.

Q: I don't think I understand your conclusion regarding "Career Like Marriage" [see Daily Dose of Reason for March 6, 2010]. Are you saying that by accepting less than one's ideal romantic or career choices, one precludes the possibility of ever doing so? Surely, a lifelong commitment to personal growth, would create the possibility of finding and enjoying one's most desired passions, even late in life. It would seem that the quest, itself, would bring purpose and happiness to the journey. Unfortunately, ideal romantic love involves the choices of two souls, whereas, finding a career passion can usually be achieved by one. If less than complete happiness is achieved in one's life, isn't that better than none at all; or, have I totally missed your point?

A: No, you’re contributing to my point. There’s a distinction between a career commitment and merely a job. A career is a form of work you “marry,” while a job is something you can do with productivity and pride, but you’re not in any sense married to it. I’m saying: don’t make a career commitment unless you find work worthy of your highest productive efforts and focus. In a totally free and rational society, almost everyone would be able to do this. In less than rational societies, some can and some honestly cannot find a career to love. Our society, while still the best one to live in on earth, is encumbered by stupid ideas (many documented at this web site) that lead to stupid policies, including political ones, that make for fewer fulfilling lines of work than would otherwise exist. I am suggesting, like you, that some happiness is better than none at all. If you cannot find a career worthy of committing to like you would to a marriage, you can still be productive—and pursue other values in life, instead … OR until you find that career love which, I agree, could even happen later in life. You’re correct that love requires two individuals while a career only requires one. The possibility of finding career happiness is greater than the possibility of finding romantic love in the highest form you might like. Neither is impossible—and both are important enough to refuse to give up on, no matter what the times or culture are like. In romance and career, aim for the stars—and go as far as you can go.

Economist Ludwig von Mises, in an unpublished letter to Ayn Rand complimenting her on her classic novel "Atlas Shrugged:"

"You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you [the masses] are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you."

Ayn Rand was universally mocked and despised by the critics of her own age, and ours. Yet her most famous book continues to be a huge best-seller, second in influence (according to one poll) only to the Bible.

Who says the truth won't sell?

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.”

-- Frederic Bastiat