So first off, let's leave aside the ragebait title: Lego wasn't banned in the end. I don't know why people do that, because even if it gets clicks, it derails y

So first off, let's leave aside the ragebait title: Lego wasn't banned in the end. I don't know why people do that, because even if it gets clicks, it derails your entire point before you've even started. Urgh, anyway. I think this is actually quite interesting and is a much better approach than the usual "just share nicely and stop annoying adults with your kid problems" method. As HN users probably know better than most, that results in the kids who don't get a look in just shutting up and having to find something else to do, having concluded that the adults don't actually care very much about the actual fairness, and really "share nicely" means "do not involve adults in your BS", and that the shut-out kid kicking off about it would usually result in that kid being made the one who can't play nicely with others. "Just ask nicely and I'm sure they'll be happy to share with you". Spoiler: they won't, but nice job making it the left-out kid's fault for not asking nicely enough. However, what they have carefully not mentioned is that the kids were permitted to come up with the final rules by the teachers, within a framework exclusively designed and administered by the teachers. If the kids had come up with a set of rules that the teachers found distasteful, would they have been allowed to? Yes, the rules they came up with probably this way pleases the most kids, or, at least, more kids than the previous system (which was analogous to something between an oligarchy and a technocracy, I suppose), but who really had the power here, and do the kids themselves, in aggregate, have any more now? I'm sure we can all see the parallels between various very adult systems, all across the political spectrum, where "freedoms" are carefully granted within a wider, very inflexible, pervasive but rather discreet framework. The allowed freedoms are still held up, by the adherents of whichever system it is, as capital-F Freedom, and to question the wider structure is to risk a label of being "anti-freedom".