Debate: Can Libertarian Parents Initiate Force Against Their Own Children?

"Because a man's self-ownership over his will is inalienable, he cannot, on the unhampered market, be compelled to continue an arrangement whereby he submits his will to the orders of another, even though he might have agreed to this arrangement previously." (p.164) --Murray N. Rothbard, "Man, Economy, and State," 2nd ed., Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama (no-cost online copy available from publisher)

If I understand the above correctly, we cannot compel a child to submit its will to the orders of its parent.

In the case of government, to initiate any force causes harm. For parents this is subtly different. For them, to refrain from the initiation of all force causes harm.

It is very desirable in the expression of ideas to show that a particular idea can be universally applied. End-to-end consistency is extremely attractive.

As a libertarian, I agree it seems unnatural to ever argue for the initiation of force, at least on the surface. Thus, it is important to understand if force can really be applied in one situation and not another, and if this is inconsistency or not.

Cognitional development cannot be the only factor, otherwise governments can simply cite this as well, saying the general public is unable to think for themselves, so the initiation of force is authorized.

There are other factors. Unlike government, parents do not retain their status for very long. At some point, the children leave their fathers and mothers to start their own family. Relative to government, parental authority is very brief.

Also, governments may try and re-try their schemes over and over while parents are generally limited to by real financial, biological, and temporal limitations.

With those distinctions in mind, I will assert that before one should consider if the initiation of force is wrong, one should also consider if it is also wrong to do harm.

So while the initiation of force can cause harm, refraining from the initiation of force can also cause harm under certain circumstances like child rearing.

I understand how inaction can fail to stop or prevent harm, but how can inaction *cause* harm?

I fail to see the difference. I would assert they are one in the same.

If my hypothetical son walks into the road and is killed by a bus, are you saying I caused his death?

In this scenario, do you have knowledge and opportunity sufficient to prevent the death?

Anthony: I infer that you'd blame me if I had the knowledge and opportunity to save my child but didn't.

I have the beginnings of a counter-argument, but I want to sleep on it and maybe work it out on paper before I commit to it. I'll reply again tomorrow.

Ill Logic: Only that I don't think that the limited duration of childhood licenses parents to initiate force. I want to note that I really like how this argument is making me think. Thanks, Anthony!

I do not believe we have established a material difference between "how inaction can fail to stop or prevent harm" vs. "how can inaction *cause* harm." All we have explored is perhaps what constitutes an accident vs. manslaughter with the bus scenario. If you have any counter-argument that turns on the distinction, by all means, let's continue to explore it.

To the point I make about duration, I do not assert there is any positive license granted specifically by limited duration. Instead, I am trying to establish how parental initiation of force is incompatible and distinct from government because government is effectively unlimited in duration. In other words, to say "parents can" does not imply "governments can" because of the differing duration characteristic.

I look forward to your next occasion to post. Thank you both.

Re: causing harm. Initiating force violates property rights, but if not initiating force in the same situation also violates property rights, Anthony probably wins, for in that case, we'd have to rely on the subjective judgement of the people closest to the child, i.e., its parents.

Re: duration. If parents' rights supersede property rights, then Anthony clearly wins.

The only argument I don't think we've addressed is, "do children have property rights?" I assert all living people have property rights from the moment the umbilical cord is cut.

To address property rights, looking back to the quote by Rothbard, he continues:

"On the other hand, when property that can be alienated is transferred, it, of course, becomes the property—under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction—of the person who has received it in exchange, and no later regret by the original owner can establish any claim to the property."

I do not believe any reasonable parent who initiates force on their child would ever assert they have assumed sole and exclusive jurisdiction over their children.

They may claim sole responsibility over them but not ownership like Rothbard is talking about.

So while self-ownership is well taken and properly defined here, it was not the main thrust.

I do not doubt Rothbard's conclusion, but I don't think the thesis of his work informs us about the role of parents and family structure.

With the above in mind, let's explore the idea of self-ownership as originally postulated by my opponent.

Parents can demand obedience from children.  If the child does not comply, then under the strict definition of property rights, the parents can withhold resources like shelter and food until compliance takes place.

Since food is not a right, parents are not obligated to feed their children.

But reasonable parents would not take this route.  And some children would initially be happy to forego food, at least for a while.  Further, some small children do not connect hunger with lack of food.

So reasonable parents do well to communicate their desire for obedience with other methods that are more meaningful to children.

Anthony wrote, "I don't think the thesis of [Rothbard's] work informs us about the role of parents and family structure."

I completely agree that I am probably using Rothbard's work in ways he didn't imagine, but I don't know of any libertarian work that deals directly with children's rights. Perhaps Mises also wrote, "Child Action: A Treatise of Raising Kids?" ;-)

Anthony wrote, "So reasonable parents do well to communicate their desire for obedience with other methods that are more meaningful to children."

I agree that parents won't withold essential nourishment from young children, but anything that will be missed can be withdrawn as punishment and anything desired can be given as reward. I think the good most children covet above all others is their parent's good graces. Even the thought that our father would yell at us could send my sister and I bawling as young children. Hell, at age 26, I might cry if he yelled at me right now!

To summarize, simple explanation of where parents get the authority to initiate force is from the child's total dependence on them. That is the physical basis for how authority is made manifest. Since the child depends on the parents for everything, the child must obey. The child will grow and become less dependent on the parents. Once dependence starts to drop over time, so does parental authority.

Compelling argument! I'm going to think about this for a bit.