To the Editor of Liberty:
The editorial headed A Sound Criticism in Liberty, No. 316, takes up a startling and surely novel position.
The material with which the sociologist deals may be divided into two classes,—owners and owned. Now, under this classification the child presents a difficulty; for, while unquestionably belonging in the category of the owned, he differs from all other parts of that category in the fact that there is steadily developing within him the power of self-emancipation, which at a certain point enables him to overcome an owner instead of remaining a part of the owned. But I am unable to see that this singularity can alter his technical status pending the day of self-emancipation.
This theory of technical status
and sociological category has the flavor of an artificiality which ought to raise suspicion. The principle originally chosen for our guidance
must be sound and well founded in itself, or all the arguments built upon it are unsupported.
The hypothesis of the appropriation of children, so far as the article is concerned, rests solely upon asset to the contention that parental control of children is so excellent, useful, and obviously proper that no superior right of an outsider can be admitted, even where children suffer from parental abuse of parental authority (or, as it is quite wrongfully stated, superior right of the community in case of abuse of parental liberty).
The supposition of the chatteldom of the child, if based upon the utility, excellence, and propriety of parental control, surely implies, among its benefits, an advantage to the child. This must recognize that, during the whole period of control, the parent is not an owner at all, but, if legal jargon can solve a sociological question, a trustee. If he be an irresponsible owner, he can kill his property as a man may kill a horse. If, on the other hand, it be admitted that he is a trustee and was ex officio entitled to a preference in selection for the post, it is surely inconsistent to argue that his appointment is based upon a sacred and inviolable claim. Sexual constancy and the family life, it is now pretty generally admitted, can be bought too dear, if the union be held to be inviolably sacred.
Even ownership in general is but a means to an end. The title of one individual to certain wealth is not axiomatic, nor can it be based upon any abstract principle. People, or the community (if this faulty term be preferred), tolerate appropriation because no better basis for industrialism has been or seems likely to be invented.
What better basis can be discovered for the control of children than that elaborated in Social Statics? Infants are dependent. Their sustenance is a gift or wage which involves conditions. When the child can make known volitions in opposition to those of the donor of its maintenance, its supporter has no right to assert property. He is justified only in arguing that he will withhold his gifts unless his terms be accepted. If no one cares anything for the child, then neither will any nurture it, nor will any defend it against injustice. No one will give to an absolutely hateful immature animal, unless from fear that some other will cause him a suffering greater than would arise from the donation of food and attendance. Non-human animals do not excite such a quantity or degree of sympathy as can secure them from servitude, mutilation, castration, depilation, milk robbery, chastisement. But these invasions may be resisted by the animal, and may as rightly be resisted by an association of the animal with one or more human animals. The same equally applies to irrational human beings, but here, sympathy being more powerful and more general, an almost universally recognized distinction is made, and becomes the basis of a set of more or less artificial rules. The individualist creed is that the maximum of liberty is the most useful treatment for all rational beings, and it is jealous to extent a generous significance to the formula, and to suppose rationality to pertain to each anthropoid individual taken at random, at least until some evidence is forthcoming to the contrary.
Leeds, England, July 6, 1895.