If there is sexual activity involving a minor, yes, the parents should be able to pursue criminal and civil cases. Solicitation without any actions doesn't seem that important.
Well that's an inherent problem of having multiple people with custody of a single child.
Ideally a compromise can be reached, but in extreme cases I suppose it could end up with litigation. But still, this is a private dispute, not something that should require outsourcing parenting to the government.
I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. I personally agree that it is harmful for minors up to some age. So again I would maintain it's the parents' responsibility to protect them until they reach that age.
> Does this logic extend to other things society has deemed vices?
Yes. When a child is too young, parents should be directly preventing access to those vices. As their children get older, parents should have instilled enough values into their children that constant surveillance is no longer required.
It's pretty trivial to block access to certain sites or apps. Or better yet, you raise your kids well so that you don't need to rely on technology to keep them away from bad things.
I'd much rather be able to simply rsync the data folder for all apps on my phone without having the hardware KeyStore breaking backups installed on another device.
Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government.
And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children alcohol. Many would say it's good to give a child a glass of wine at a family dinner so that they learn to drink responsibly.
Msot agree that cigarettes are harmful at all ages, so that's not really relevant.
Yes, I think everyone should be able to exchange payments freely.
Drugs should be legal, so that's not a problem. Terrorism and human trafficking are more complicated topics, but basically I think they should be attacked more directly, not financially.