My 2 cents are that the advice-giver might take into account the well-being of not just the LBS or the WAS, but also the R. Actually, all 3 simultaneously.
For example, if there's a tantruming toddler in a store, one could suggest that the mother (i.e., the LBS) give in to the toddler (the WAS) and give him the desired object (OW) to quiet him and end the tantrum (depression, low self-esteem, you name it). But we all know what would happen ==> more tantrums in the future. There tons of data backing that pattern up.
The mother could react in a very harsh manner, too, beating on the kid and verbally berating him until they get to the car, leaving him shaking and humiliated.
Firm limits and warm manner seem to be best. Set up those boundaries. "You're free to make your choices, but you'll also need to accept the consequences. I love you but your stuff will be packed for your pickup following your communicated choice (words or actions)."
In truth, no boundaries tend to lead to a very slow form of development or learning.
In other words, I'm with you. Suggest the boundary setting, for the good of the LBS, the WAS, and the R.
