Home.

Libertarianism and Parental Discipline

These days we are bombarded with stories of how our government is trying to do things "for the sake of the children". The policies being promoted are often thinly veiled attempts at expanding the size, scope, and power of the government to restrict freedom of speech (the CDA), freedom of movement and expression (curfew laws, uniforms), freedom of religion (mandatory prayer moments, school vouchers), freedom of choice in education (national "standards" in curriculum, laws making homeschooling difficult) and a variety of other unconstitutional laws that are done under the guise of "protecting" youth.

Naturally, Libertarians have responded by strongly denouncing these laws and trying to combat them whenever and wherever possible. Increasingly, however, many libertarians are lumping in the right to "discipline" their children in whatever way they see fit (physical violence specifically) as a natural right, and attacking anyone whoís opinion differs from their own as a meddling liberal who wants to control their children. In this essay, I aim to show how Libertarianism provides a moral basis for the belief that initiating physical force against oneís children is wrong.

Libertarianism holds dear the non-aggression principle (simply, that the initiation of force or fraud against another individual is wrong.) We apply this to government, and to each other. We generally believe that government has no right to get involved in what we can read, watch, drink, eat, buy, say, or do unless it violates someone else's rights. The same goes for people: Someoneís right to swing their fist ends when it hits my face, as the saying goes.

So why do we apply a double standard when it comes to young people? Why is something that would be considered assault and battery against any other individual (i.e. whipping them with a belt) considered "proper" when done to oneís own flesh and blood? At what point during the lashing is moral legitimacy gained?

There are many arguments put forward by those who support this "right" of parents. First is the old "spare the rod, spoil the child" argument. I have several qualms with this. First, what is the lesson a libertarian is teaching to their children by physically beating them into compliance: That the initiation of force is the way to elicit a desired action from someone? Is this the lesson we want to be teaching? Especially in todayís world, where precious liberty is on the defensive everywhere. Do libertarians really want to be propagating the "force is good" mentality to the next generation? Secondly, if you replace the "child" with "citizen", you have a summation of the logic of many oppressive totalitarian governments. Simply, that the "citizens (children) need to be disciplined for their own good, and the state (parent), being the guardian of the citizens, as an obligation to keep them in line through whatever means necessary, including physical force."

Now let me make it clear that I am not saying that parents should abdicate their role or responsibilities. On the contrary. Parents have a duty to guide and protect their children until such a time as their children can assume the responsibilities of life. And I am just as dismayed and frightened at the ridiculous encroachments of government into the way parents raise their children as any of my fellow Libertarians. However, if the role of government is truly to protect its citizens from the initiation of force, then Libertarians should recognize that a parent initiating physical force against their child is no less an initiation of force then if a another person initiated the force against the child.

Another common argument is that since parents are the legal guardians of their children, they have a legal right to punish their children in any form they wish as long as they donít cause the child permanent harm. If one defines a parentís role as guardian of their children in the same sense that one would define a slave masterís role as guardian of his slaves, perhaps this argument would make sense. But children are not property, they are living, breathing individuals, who are entitled to all the basic rights and freedoms we hold dear, including and especially the right not to be physically damaged by those who are ostensibly supposed to protect them. And when you again factor in the underlying lesson being taught by the initiation of physical force by a parent, the idea that the initiation of force isnít doing permanent harm of some form or another goes out the window.

A more interesting argument is that by not physically disciplining their children, and by instead trying to reason with their children, parents are laying the future groundwork for moral and rational relativism in their children. Simply, that by sparing the rod, they are allowing the child to question the reason and rationale of the parent, therefore not only undermining perceived parental authority, but allowing the child to question the fundamental underlying reason of the parent, which is perceived by many libertarians to lead to the sort of doublethink and compartmentalization that goes on in the head of our current President. To this I would say that it is not the questioning of authority that leads to moral relativism, it is primarily the act of lying to oneself. The questioning of authority is a thing to be embraced in a child as a sign of an independent mind. "Why?" is not an evil word. It is the first step a child takes into the realm of reason. Even though it may be difficult for parents to explain to their children the rationale behind their decisions, it is far preferable to the alternative path of teaching children that force is a way to get a desired result from someone. And also consider the blatant hypocrisy exhibited by a libertarian parent who would profess to oppose the initiation of force against individuals, and yet initiates force against their children. This would appear to be a logical contradiction, and is certainly getting off on the wrong foot for any parent who seeks to instill in their children libertarian or objectivist principles. Reason begets reason, and the opposite is also true. That is something parents should remember.

It is time that Libertarians realized that the concepts of liberty and youth are not mutually exclusive. We Libertarians have an obligation to stand up for the equal freedom of all individuals, youth included. The fight for youth rights is just as important as ending the drug war, privatizing government functions, lowering taxes, and restoring all of our Constitutional liberties. In fact, the fight for youth rights is an intrinsic part of all of the aforementioned battles. Youth are as affected as any other group by drug prohibition. Working youth are forced to pay into an entitlement system from which they will never see a dime. Youth are taxed if they work, or even if they buy clothes (sales tax), without representation. And young peopleís constitutional liberties are under assault in a myriad of ways, some of which I listed at the beginning of this essay. Its time for Libertarians to acknowledge, recognize, and support the youth rights movement in this country. Pardon me for sounding cliche, but together we can make a difference!

-Justin Mallone

Vice-President, Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions www.asfar.org

Libertarian (in the dues-paying sense) since '98