I read this post on Blogdial with interest. Half of it I agree with entirely - the other half sums up why libertarianism does not, perhaps, adequately articulate how I feel. I know that Irdial encourages people to use their blogs in order to comment on Blogdial posts, so here's my (current, likely subject to change) take on it - it's something I've been grappling with for a while.

One of the reasons I started a personal parenting blog is because I felt that writing about my specific approach to raising my children didn't sit easily with a libertarian blog that has evolved (thus far at least) to support and promote family freedoms.

But I arrived at libertarianism only because I had invested a huge amount of time thinking about children (mine specifically), their freedom (or lack of it) and how, as a parent, I could best respect their liberty - physically, emotionally and intellectually.

I was blessed with a first child who strenuously demanded that I take her autonomy seriously. One of the earliest posts I wrote on here was very personal and it was entitled something like "Why does everybody want to hold the baby?" describing my frustration at people treating M as a trophy to be kissed, passed about and photographed, rather than a human being who was clearly vocalising her desire to remain with her parents - and her terror at being removed. As it happens, my second child actually doesn't much mind who holds him, as long as they are happy and affectionate, but the ball had been set in motion two and a half years ago and I've not stopped thinking since then.

We choose to parent peacefully, without using violence, and by modelling the behaviours we would like to see in our children. We can see them learning without being "taught" by using us and everything else around them as tools to explore their world. None of these approaches would work if we were lazy, disinterested, disengaged, immoral, unable to think critically, or lacking in empathy. But, by and large, we're not. So we - who have chosen not to hit our children, or force them to jump through development hoops - are happy to see them developing into decent human beings.

People - friends, certain family members - opposed many aspects of our parenting. Where we have responded to their needs by selectively co-sleeping, breastfeeding and slinging; shunning nurseries, the advice of mainstream parenting "experts" and the looming school gates, we have experienced the social disapproval of those who feel that the fabric of their conventional world has worked a little looser because of our choices. As a consequence, I spent a lot of time thinking about how to construct logical, rational arguments, and how to adequately articulate why we believe that we are doing the right thing for our children.

I spent some time pondering the nature of "rights", specifically children's rights, and quickly dismissed them as a recipe for disaster. Universal children's rights are easily hijacked by a faceless, anonymous third party (typically the state) in order to "parent" by proxy, making en masse decisions about the "entitlement" of your unique child to goods, services and relationships that you may heartily disagree with. It is no surprise that some vocal proponents of children's rights have been paedophiles, who want children to have the "right" to enjoy sexual relationships with adults.

None of this is to say that children should not be assured of their safety in the same way that adults are, only that they should not enjoy special privileges for as long as they are enshrined in law by a third party. But children's rights as something that are voluntarily bestowed on children by their parents - this sounds more interesting, especially where one is diverging from the mainstream and looking to connect with others who are doing likewise. As a parent, I do claim "ownership" of my children unless I want someone else to "own" them, which I most certainly do not. But it is then my responsibility to parent in the best possible way, especially because my children have had no choice with regard to their own creation and existence. And so I gladly claim the responsiblity and find myself explaining at length to others why I believe that self regulation and the self-regulated achievement of phsyical, emotional and intellectual independence is vital to my children, and why I believe that physical and mental coercion is damaging to the ultimate realisation of a truly personally responsible human being. No-one can make me parent in this way, but I can choose to do it for as long as I enjoy the freedom to make those decisions.

Of course, that freedom has been threatened by the Badman report into elective home education - that being the only way I can see to adequately ensure intellectual (and I suppose physical and emotional) freedom for my children as they grew older. In order to argue for my freedom to voluntarily bestow on my children their freedom, I have to be able to defend it rationally and coherently. I have come to realise that collectivism - of whatever political colour - is abhorrent to me, a person who has realised first hand why coercion and violence to "get things done" according to somebody else's standards is not the answer to raising independent, personally responsible, self regulating human beings who by virtue of being so are far, far, more likely to help others voluntarily. 

The personal really is the political, and I suppose this understanding that so many home educators have right in front of their eyes is one of the reasons I have been so perplexed as to the immediate rejection of libertarianism from so many home educating quarters. I don't think it is logical. There either is freedom, or there is not.  If you demand money from your fellow human beings, whether they like it or not, as your "right", then you are putting yourself in the position of Badman, who sees education according to his standards as a "right" of your children, whether you like it or not.

But the reverse is also true: for a libertarian to embrace violence on a personal level is not logical either, to me at least. If you truly believe in freedom then initiating force to get things done - whether it's helping the poor or picking up toys - is wrong. It's a short-sighted, quick fix that leads to dependency on authority and risk aversion in decision making. Those well-behaved children from the 1950s that Irdial references have grown into the majority of mature adults we see around us today: unthinking, dismissive of real freedom, willing to use violence to get things done, reliant on the state to help the poor, blindly promoting the current political system as a long-term solution. It really is a bleak picture indeed. 

Whilst I still defend your freedom to parent as you choose because there is no better alternative, I also believe that different actions have different values. And, as far as I can see, to spare the rod is to save the child - to save that child from an implicit understanding that violence is the best way to get other people to do things that you want them to do. That, to me, is an essentially statist view of the world I want no part of at any level of my life. I don't use violence, I try to help other people, I give to charity, I aim to run the business ethically and I desire always to act with integrity. Whilst I can't force others to do any of those things, I can say from the bottom of my heart that choosing to do them voluntarily has been the most enriching experience of my existence - and something I wish for my own children, if we are to have any hope of changing the world for the better.