As a libertarian anarchist I usually find much to agree with in the opinions of Spiked magazine. Despite its Marxist ancestry it generally adopts a refreshingly anti-Establishment (if not outright libertarian) position on current topics. The editor, Brendan O’Neil, himself claims to be a ‘left’ libertarian, perhaps harking back to days of yore when the left actually did stand for individual rights and freedom rather than the viciously authoritarian control cult that is the current pretender to that tradition.

However, I cannot agree with his latest piece on smacking children. The article was written in response to legislation recently enacted by the Scottish Parliament that makes smacking a child a criminal offence, similar to the legislation that has existed in NZ since 2009. It will likely suffer from the similar issues and challenges, using as it does the highly subjective term of ‘reasonable’ force. However this is not O’Neill’s gripe.

The article bemoans the authoritarian invasion into family life by the state, and in particular the right of a parent to decide how to discipline their child. In a rather ad-hominem article, he caricatures those who disagree with his position as ‘quinoa mums and blogging dads’, elitist middle-class crusaders attempting to tell him how to raise his children. Perhaps his Marxist class-warfare showed through a little there, and perhaps he is right in his assessment.

However, for one who claims to be a libertarian (of whatever persuasion) he appears to have forgotten that the philosophy is based around individual rights, in particular property rights in oneself, expressed in the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). The NAP doesn’t make a distinction between adults and children in that regard, nor does it allow you to pick and choose whose rights you think you can violate. As human beings children have as much right to be free from violence as adults do. As a parent you are guardians of their welfare and executor of their rights until such time as they are able to claim those rights for themselves. One of those rights is, like everyone else, their property right in their own body to not be violated. As a parent it is your job to uphold that right on their behalf, not to violate it just because you can and the child can’t defend itself. That state of helpless dependency alone is all the more reason to protect that right on their behalf.

I can understand the reaction to being legislated against, itself an illegitimate act. But such a reaction cannot exist to justify violating the rights of another person. His concern appears to be solely about the rights of the adults being violated through state authoritarianism, while simultaneously claiming the right to do the same to another, the only difference being that the other in this case is a dependent minor. He seems unaware of the conflict of his claims, justifying his actions with trite excuses such “I was smacked and it didn’t do me any harm”, and “it’s an act of love”. I don’t doubt that he believes that, but I don’t believe you have a right to assault another individual, especially if it is a defenceless child and even if you’re well intentioned.

None of this is to defend the state ‘legislation’, which is a clear violation of the property rights of all subjected to it. But libertarian philosophy is not about being anti-state and opposing state oppression but rejecting all NAP violations. Clearly his libertarian consistency needs a little work.

I’m sure we’ll be friends again tomorrow, but on this matter we’ll have to agree to disagree.