An interesting dispute occurred here on Twitter between two libertarians whom I quite respect.
On one side, @dobroum presented a universal moral philosophy, one of whose conclusions is the assertion that any violence against children is inadmissible, as well as the rather banal “it is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick,” meaning that a family should be complete, everyone in the family should love one another, the father should earn enough to support the whole family, and the mother should prioritize raising offspring above any other hobby. And divorces, kindergartens, and single mothers harm children.
He was opposed by @VoiceInTwit, who argued that there are no universal parenting methods, that violence from children is quite acceptable to suppress with forceful means, and that in the real world one has to deal with imperfect situations—and if a moral philosophy with its universal principles cannot handle such situations, then its value is small.
Even from my retelling, it is not difficult to understand whose side I am on in this dispute. However, I should note that although this looks like a confrontation between the theorist Dobroum and the practitioner Voice, in fact, the situation is the opposite: the practitioner Dobroum (has children, raises them non-violently) against the theorist Voice (has no children of his own). Due to my own lack of children, my judgments will suffer from the same deficiency.
Nevertheless, a specific case of non-violent child-rearing only proves the fallacy of the thesis “non-violent upbringing is impossible,” yet this thesis is not being put forward in the debate. Instead, the thesis “non-violent upbringing is not always appropriate” is being advanced, and here the practice must move into the realm of theory to defend the opposing claim that “violent upbringing is always inappropriate.”
Alas, the attempt to justify the non-application of violence to children through a universal NAP runs into two obstacles. First, as Voice notes, in a situation where the NAP is violated by a child, they are deprived of the protection of the non-aggression principle. Otherwise, the NAP proves to be non-universal (violence can be used to suppress violence, but if violence is used by a child, it cannot be). Second, the problem of fuzzy boundaries arises in full force: not being competent from birth, an infant remains a will-less object of manipulation by adults for quite a long time; otherwise, they would not survive. There is no clear line between manipulation without consent and violence. An infant can be undressed without consent, whereas for an adult, this is usually a criminal offense. Meanwhile, universal moral principles should work, shouldn’t they? Unfortunately, with children, the use of crutches is inevitable: no matter how you look at it, they acquire legal personhood only gradually.
At this stage of the dispute, the advocate of non-violent treatment of children must take off the hat of a moral philosopher and become a practitioner again, bringing utilitarian arguments that those who have experienced childhood trauma statistically turn out to be stupider and unhappier by adulthood, after which one can fully immerse oneself in a discussion about how applicable statistics are to individual cases. And here, all the cards fall to the hands of the one who is skeptical of playing with statistics, because it was with those very same statistical arguments that we were fed before the forced COVID vaccination, as well as the stripping of the right to bear arms.
Raising a child is the responsibility of those who are doing it. And everyone does it, from parents to cartoon creators to a random passerby expressing their moral judgment to a child. A parent cannot and should not shield a child from any adverse influence. Likewise, a parent cannot claim an exclusive right to do whatever they please with their child—a random passerby may not limit themselves to rendering a moral judgment, but may also use force if they deem it necessary.
So, about the use of force. I very much hope that even the most non-violent moral philosopher still teaches her girls to use it. This includes explaining in which situations it is appropriate to use force, even if it is not being directly used against you personally right now. Otherwise, there is a danger of raising pacifists or helpless victims instead of defenders of freedom. However, it is not such a great danger, since a parent is never solely responsible for upbringing. And that is a good thing.
