To the Editor of Liberty:
You say that children must be owned till they are of age to become owners, and that it is better that they be owned by their parents than by the community; therefore we should not interfere with a father’s pounding his child as much as he thinks discipline requires.
I rise to ask why a child should not be its own owner in all matters wherein it has a recognizable will. Of course, if the baby goes to fooling with my razor or my sugar bowl, it is invading my property, and I am justified in resisting the invasion, and, if it seems useful, punishing the invader. If my main reason for objecting to such use of my property was my regard for the child’s health, that makes no difference. But even the fact that the child is an invader doesn ot justify an unreasonably severe punishment.
Of course, again, if I have a baby and move to another town, I take the baby along without asking its leave; but I have no reason to suppose that the baby objects to what I am doing; therefore I do not consider myself an invader.
But as to the parent's right to whip his child for non-invasive disobedience, it is not, to my mind, too excellent, too useful, too obviously proper a thing to warrant
a dispute. Grant that good is often done by the exercise of this alleged right; it does a tremendous lot of harm too, not only in temporary black and blue spots, but in assisting almost every known form of miseducation.
It is reasonable enough that a parent be the primary judge and summary executioner with regard to his child’s misdemeanors, and that the parent be not punishable for slight abuses in the exercise of this office; but that his most severe judgments should be without appeal, and his greatest malfeasances without punishment or redress, seems to me unreasonable.