Comment by whatever1

> you only think you're making a rational one and to outsiders and in retrospect

In retrospect? It's really not hard to determine before the fact that petty crime is not a road to good things.

We have ways to prevent people from going down this path. It's called enforcement. He was more or less allowed to steal and sleep in the parks. If there was strict enforcement, this wouldn't have been a medium term viable option. Doesn't have to be throw the person in prison for the rest of their life, but either accept help, go through the criminal justice system or figure out another way to contribute to society in a positive way. It sounds like the author at any point could have found some kind of employment, but chose this because it was viable. And society wasn't doing him any favors by looking the other way

This question jumps past the more fundamental question of whether policymakers, and the government in general, should prevent people from making their own choices.

Education is a very different story which ends with letting people make their own decisions after (hopefully) having more information about realistic outcomes.

I don't personally want a government preventing me from making my own choices. That line is blurry for sure, like if my decision directly negatively impacts someone else for example. But if packing up and riding the rails or sleeping in parks primarily impacts only me, the government shouldn't be able to stop me because they "know" its the wrong choice.

Well said here.

We don't have a honest discussion about the progression of addiction so the choices are not visible, until later.

The first beer is the most critical choice, yet it's made for us (in 99% of the cases) by our peers. So is it a choice really?

We're routine (addiction) prone herd animals and as long as we pretend otherwise (free will and the likes) we're stuck in repeating this.

I don't think humans are so straight forward. We have an instinctive nature to rebel that's not going anywhere, and we're all just so absurdly different, so what works for one person or family, may fail spectacularly for another. My opinion is that all you can do is be honest about things. DARE, for instance, ended up resulting in more kids trying drugs after all was said and done. It relied heavily on exaggeration and misleading statements - a lot like contemporary politics. And once people realized some of what was said was lies, the entire foundation fell apart and it all became seen as a joke.

So for instance I'll happily tell my kids that marijuana is enjoyable and relatively harmless in and of itself, yet you end up smelling bad, it ruins motivation, hurts your short-term memory, gives you the munchies, and is just generally is self-escapism, like most drugs. Gotta work on my exact pitch there, but that's the spirit of the point - honesty. They will make plenty of bad decisions in life, but I'd rather that with each one they see I was right, rather than see that I was lying or exaggerating - driving them further away from everything else I taught them.

This is a good and balanced reply. My brother was much more rebellious than me when he was younger. Not as crazy as your first post, but crazy enough for our relatively conservative family. When he got married and had kids later, he is -- to my great surprise -- a very strict, conservative parent. He has his daughters on the straight and narrow path. Sometimes I wonder will they go crazy as soon as they got to uni (move away from home). I saw more than a few crack during my first year of uni, living in dorms. You can probably find some books or blogs that people have written about their own journey as a parent, especially when they had a rocky start in life as an adult.

I am not a parent, but I have observed that the best style of parents adapt to the natural personality of each child. For example, I was very contientious from early childhood (I assume that part was genetic), and my brother was exactly the opposite. My parents really had to work with him to get him to take school seriously. Fortunately, he has a naturally high IQ, so it wasn't so hard for him.

> Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.

"Do whatever you want and things will work out because it worked out for me" is not a good (or honest) message for children.

[survivor-bias-airplane.jpg]

> Took many risks and things worked out okay for me in the end. I could tell my kids to do the opposite but I'd be lying and they'd know it.

Why do you think they'd know it? Working out in the end for you was the less likely option. Everything is possible but if you manage to explain the likelihood of each outcome compared to the expected payoff it could make the case clearer. Not an easy thing when dealing with small kids. It's hard because even adults are blinded by survivorship bias. Kids are easy victims, they can all become Cristiano Ronaldo, they can all launch the unicorn startup after dropping out of school, etc.

> I have nothing to offer.

Kids need guidance whether you think they'll take it or not, especially at that age. It's up to you to strike the balance between guidance, trickery, heavy handed rules, something works. Your teachers probably didn't care enough and your parents couldn't find the right button because it's not an easy job but it doesn't mean you can't or worse, that you shouldn't even try because you "have nothing to offer".