No Smokes, No Smacks

The UK's Department of Education will prohibit "childminders" from smacking kiddies in their care—even if they've got permission from the kids' parents. Babysitters will also be prohibited from smoking in the presence of kids.

Comments

[scott]

The UN is lobbying for corporal punishment of your own children to be illegal?!? Someone should smack them...

[Amy Phillips]

I'm almost always on the libertarian side of any issue, but on this one, I'm on the side of the UN and anyone else who says it's not okay to hit children, even if they're your children. I don't care whether you hit them gently--if you assault an adult, it's no defense to say that you didn't hit them as hard as you could have. I don't care what they did to incur the parent's wrath--virtually nothing justifies violence against a child. And I think that the government does have a place in preventing and punishing parents who hit their children, just as it has a place in preventing and punishing adults who hit other adults.
I also think that children are different from adults in a way that sometimes does warrant government restrictions on their behavior, and on the behavior of others towards them, that would be unjustified against an adult. If a wife hits her husband, he can choose to press charges or to leave the home. A child doesn't have that recourse, legally, mentally, or practically, and so greater protection of law is justified.
This is not to say that any parent who swats a child once deserves to have the kid removed from the home. But I do think that it's always wrong to hit a child, and I have no problem with the law acknowledging that and treating parents who hit accordingly.

[Brian]

Amy--

You make a great point about the legal double standard between adults and children with regard to hitting, but I don't quite understand why you don't think a parent who swats their child once deserves to have their child removed from the home. I'm curious what you think the punishment should be...fines? Jail time? If the point is to protect the children and all hitting is wrong, then why not take the children away if the parent hits them once?

It seems to me that by saying this you are acknowleding that there are scenarios where a parent might "hit" a child in such a way that is not really harmful to the child...if this is the case, what's the big deal?

[Tuning Spork]

Amy, I disagree. Children are learning the rules as they go along in a world that is still largely alien to them. In my experience I've found that most kids' (mainly boys') attentions spans are severely challenged when listening to lectures about soul-searching the reasons why burning your little sister's Barbie dolls is wrong.

Kids are going to push the boundries, and cross them when they think they can get away with it, and the fear of a spanking influences them a lot more than the fear of a talking-to.

I in no way endorse what we'd call abuse; beating that leave injury, abrasions, whelts etc. And I can't stand to see kids smacked around in supermarkets and such.

But, I'll tell ya, when I was a rebelious little brat I learned a lot more lessons about how I should behave and treat others by getting the wooden spoon on the butt then I did from pondering the deep ethical questions of stealing an apple from the corner fruit stand.

(Actually, I DID steal fruit from the fruit stand, but I didn't get a beating for it. My mother gave me money and made me give it to the owner while admitting, in front of all the customers, what I'd done. Yeech! I'd have preferred the spoon. Wait... no I wouldn't)

Bottom line: unless real damage is being done physically or pschologically, the gubmint has no business butting into how parents discipline their children.

[A father]

There are OTHER WAYS to discipline a child. Physical violence is usually an expression of the emotions inside the batterer. Physical violence is a shortcoming. It is evidence of a lack of a creative solution.

When reason fails, violence emerges to fill the void. The act of spanking (or any kind of physical aggression) tells more about the spanker than about the spankee.

OTHER WAYS? There are many: "Go to your room!" is a classic. But there are so many others. My dad did it with, "No dinner for you tonight!" Then there are the age-appropriate disciplinary means, such as allowance-withholding, chores penalties, toys forfeiture, and other such privilege revocations. Let's also remember that a stern, firm, SCOLDING VOICE can be very effective.

I have NEVER struck my child in any way -- ever. And I never will. I have found that a firm (but internally loving) voice, accompanied by some of the above-mentioned penalties has done the job quite well. But through it all, I always remind my child that it is the act that I disapprove of ? not the person. (Hence, the internally loving attitude.)

And it looks like he?s turning out to be quite a fine, respectable, well-behaved human being.

Applying creative discipline obviates the need for any kind of state oversight, keeps bureaucratic regulators out of our homes, and would especially have the UN go looking for work somewhere else.

[Dan]

Amy, I disagree. Children are learning the rules as they go along in a world that is still largely alien to them.

Hitting them teaches them "it is right and moral for people in authority to hurt the people they rule over, if the people disobey them".

That's not a lesson I want my children to learn.

[Steve]

Dan wrote: Hitting them teaches them "it is right and moral for people in authority to hurt the people they rule over, if the people disobey them".

What utter bullshit. I hope you are as clear in all your interactions with your child. does your child think that you speeding in the car makes speeding ok? When your child is young do you let him believe there's an Easter Bunny or Santa Clause or tooth fairy? What does that tell the child about lying?

I spanked my children when necessary. Enough to get their attention, never enough to harm them. They're both good, well-adjusted children who believe violence is strictly a last resort and only for defense.

You anti-spanking-types feel free to do what's good for your kids, I'll do what's good for mine.

Now kiss my ass for thinking you can run MY life.

[joe]

Hooray Dan! No violence against children!

Smacking your kids no better than smacking your wife, which also used to be common, accepted way for genuinely decend, loving men to keep order in their households and confirm their power. The fact that hitting kids is more familiar and common these days is irrelevant. Some people who do it are evil. Most just don't know any better; it's what they learned.

I'm not going to hit my daughter.

[Steve]

Joe:

Your comment shows the difference. A swat on the butt is significantly different that smacking one's wife or kids around. One is done out of love and in control, the other out of a malicious inability to control oneself.

[TJ]

Thanks for highlighting why libertarianism doesn't work: it doesn't tell us what counts as a harm. For that we need a moral theory. Some people believe that corporal punishment harms children; others believe that corporal punishment is necessary to properly educate children. Libertarianism doesn't help us decide between the two. Only a moral theory that has an idea of what's good for children (and people more generally) could possibly answer the question.

Libertarianism might offer hope as a method or working principle or modus operandi. But I'm not sure how much hope it offers, since some think it justifies invasive regulation of relations between children and their parents. Obviously libertarianism itself doesn't justify that invasion, only a full blown theory could. And if libertarianism forces us to choose between two competing theories of the good, what good is liberrtarianism? We can always simply make the underlying choice.

[Jim]

TJ,

Libertarianism has never pretended to be an all-encompassing moral theory. The fact that many decent people of good intention disagree over what the best moral theory is is the best reason to adopt libertarianism. Individually we can all choose an underlying theory of the good, but how do you expect people to peacefully agree as a society on it? Democracy screws over the 49% that lost, and still doesn't prove the winners are right. Logical debate seems unlikely to work since many learned people also disagree all the time while employing logic. Of course it can be imposed by force, but we've seen how well that works out (Think Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.). Ask yourself this - is it better when people disagree to provide the widest sphere for all of us to choose our moral systems, or do we want the state to try to micromanage our lives? Even if the later was preferable in theory, it certainly hasn't proven to work well in practice.

Applied to this situation, however, the philosophy does have implications. If you are genuinely physically harming your child, the state can and has the obligation to intervene, just as it does if someone mugs or beats up an adult. However it is unlikely that a simple spanking does cause any real physical harm to the child. It's biggest benefit as a form of punishment is the humiliation factor. Libertarianism limits itself to physical harm because it is relatively easy to define. As far as psychological harm, there's probably all kinds of ways parents knowingly or unknowingly harm their kids, just as adults psychologically harm each other, and all of this is legal, if not moral. In any case I'm not sure the occasional spanking does any more harm than any of the other punishments. As has been correctly pointed out, kids do not have the same rights as adults, so smacking one lightly does not seem to be any worse a crime than depriving the child of his freedom or property, something any parent who cares about their child does ALL THE TIME.

I am aware that the child care experts now say spanking doesn't work, that the 'time out', when correctly and consistently enforced, does, and I plan to practice that with my own child. On the other hand I was spanked a few times, feared it a few others and I don't consider myself 'harmed' for this, so I can't think a blanket prohibition against it makes any sense.

Steve,

In criticising Joe you also missed the important distinction between striking a person who should be one's equal (another adult and your life partner in marriage and parenthood) which is extremely disrespectful, and disciplining a child who is not the moral equal of an adult. The distinction you cite may not apply (can't an adult also smack a child out of a 'malicious ability to control oneself'?), but presumably that's not behavior we'd want to defend.

[Amy Phillips]

Brian: I guess what I was really getting at is that while all violence against a child is harmful, I don't want the state to have the power to take children away from their parents any time a parent causes any harm to a child. Basically, as with any law, I have fears of some government agent someday whose zealousness outweighs his common sense, since we've seen it happen so often before. In principle, yes, it's always wrong to hit a child, and every parent who does so deserves punishment. In practice, however, I'm not comfortable with the state having the power to split up a family unless the harm rises to a critical level.

Tuning Spork: While fear of a spanking may make a kid behave, I don't think that makes it okay. Parents should be teaching their kids to behave because it's the right thing to do (e.g., don't steal your sister's toys because it's wrong to take things that don't belong to you), or because being bad is dangerous in some way (e.g., don't run out into the street because you could be killed), or because there's some benefit to being good (e.g., don't yell and scream in school, because then the teacher will think you're irresponsible and not pick you to be the line leader, or whatever). Kids who are good out of fear (and I'm not saying you're one of them, but a lot of parents choose to use physical discipline to the exclusion of talking to their kids about why something is wrong to do) grow up to be adults who aren't afraid anymore, but they haven't internalized moral norms. That's one of the reasons that violence tends to "run in families." If we're going to teach kids that it's wrong to hurt other people, and I think that's the most important thing a parent can teach a child, we have to start by not hurting the child.

[Sean]

Smacking a child is not a necessary parental device, but then again, neither is giving an allowance. They both have their place, however, and can be beneficial if used appropriately and detrimental if used improperly (usually if overused). I was smacked infrequently as a child, but those I received were useful. They usually were received after I did something dangerous I had been told not to do, given reasons not to do it, and still disobeyed (going into the street, running with knives or scissors, and such). A swift smack on the bottom reenforced that this was a rule to be followed more closely than others that came with just reasoning or firm words (eat your peas, don't tease your sister).
As for "go to your room," this is not a device my parents used, and I grew up fine; this doesn't mean other parents shouldn't employ this device. But keep in mind, sending a child to his room doesn't employ REASON anymore than a smack on the bottom. It is important to remember that while children develop rational abilities, they are far more imperfect with this than adults. Adults need to impose order on the child while teaching it to reason. Sometimes the ability of the child to accept a rational argument isn't there.
As for the analogy with adult on adult assault, what about other things we do to kids that aren't acceptable to do to adults. I saw a mother physically lift a child and carry her out of a McDonald's playland the other day, when the child refused to leave. Imagine if my girlfriend had said she didn't want to go when I was ready, and I had carried her kicking and screaming from the place. If I wasn't assaulted by the patrons, I'd probably be in cuffs soon enough. Grounding a child or keeping a child in his room could be construed as unlawful restraint if done to an adult. Adult/child interactions are not the same as adult/adult interactions, and the rules for them shouldn't be the same either.

[L.Peterson]

"Grounding a child or keeping a child in his room could be construed as unlawful restraint if done to an adult."

. . . unless, of course, someone posts bail for the kid, right?

[Brian]

Amy--

I pretty much figured that was where you were coming from; however, if there isn't a system to enforce the standard of "all violence against a child is harmful", then the standard isn't really meaningful, is it? I think you are right to be concerned with the state breaking up families in the course of overzealous enforcement--this is why I take issue with your original comment. I agree that there are better ways to discipline a child (though, to be fair, I don't have nor do I intend to have children, so that's easy for me to say), but I fear that the problems caused by criminalizing spanking would far outweigh any benefits.

Just look at the drug war.

[TJ]

Jim--
I'm essentially libertarian in politics, as a modus operandi. But I'm more and more skeptical that agreement on it as a modus operandi will protect the freedoms I think important, including the freedom of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

Generally, I agree with you on the merits of corporal punishment, and about where to draw the line. But I'd note that libertarianism-as-modus-operandi doesn't play any real role in the line drawing. There's no consideration in your example of the different perspectives on the issue. And that's about what we'd expect. Those who, for whatever reason, believe in a rigid formula of corporal punishment are a minority, and, despite their view that it is necessary to properly raise their children, we will see efforts--more and more, supported by reason-style lifestyle libertarians--to ban their attempts to practice their beliefs. I can't square that with the view I share with you--"The fact that many decent people of good intention disagree over what the best moral theory is is the best reason to adopt libertarianism. Individually we can all choose an underlying theory of the good, but how do you expect people to peacefully agree as a society on it? Democracy screws over the 49% that lost, and still doesn't prove the winners are right."

[Anonymous]

"[Spanking's] biggest benefit as a form of punishment is the humiliation factor."

Well, then -- wouldn't a good scolding accomplish the same end, but without the physical trespass?

[joe]

Does anybody still read these when they reach the "More" page?

Steve,

The reason I emphasized the part about hitting your wife once being a "common, accepted way for genuinely decent men..." to behave, was to recognize the very difference you point out. Men who were perfectly in control, and acting out of what they thought of as love, used to hit their wives, servants, and other lower members of their households. Today, we don't put up with that behavior.

Except with children. The removal of physical violence as a normal part of children's lives is a great step forward for our species to take.

[W.Dyer]

"Does anybody still read these [posts] when they reach the 'More' page?"

(Well, obviously YOU do, Joe.)

By the way, I admire your last thought, "The removal of physical violence as a normal part of children's lives is a great step forward for our species to take."

Now if we could only persuade some folks in Asia, Africa and the Middle East about the merits of such an idea . . . hmm.

[Benton John]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://dedicated-web-server.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/19/2004 11:38:41
Some things cannot be taught, only discovered.