Is a year of freedom enough to call leaving the Amish a choice?

Not on its own. Steven Mazie argues that both sides of the liberal debate get it wrong. Toleration liberals vastly underestimate what a meaningful right of exit requires, while autonomy liberals fail to appreciate how much intervention providing one would take, which leaves the exit option deeply flawed as a test.

The Amish are often cited as a paradigm illiberal group, mistrustful of and separated from the modern world. The practice of rumspringa complicates that common image, because the community builds a decision point into adolescence rather than assuming continuity.

The mechanics are specific. At age sixteen, Amish children are released from church strictures and given a year or more to run around in violation of Amish norms. Only after the opportunity to taste life with cars, electricity, alcohol and rock and roll do they decide whether to be baptized.

That makes consent express rather than tacit. To paraphrase Locke, an Amish youth is born a member of no church. The question is then whether rumspringa is a meaningful exit option, and whether there are plausible ways to make it more so.

The paper argues both camps err. Tolerance liberals tend to vastly underestimate what is required of a meaningful right of exit, while autonomy liberals fail to appreciate how much intervention would be necessary to provide one. The case suggests the exit option is deeply flawed as a litmus test for accommodating minorities.