I thought maybe we could resume this interesting conversation between Conrad and myself:

David J. Heinrich said
A few things that I was just thinking about, spurred on by the thread, 772 Parenting Time Outs.

I think a lot of the problems with parenting are because for some people, it's all a reaction in some way to the way our parent's parented us: Either attempting to do the "negation" of the bad things our parents did to us, or reliving those with our kids. Most people tend to try to replicate the good things, although that too may go if they take an "I'm gonna do the opposite of what my parents did" approach, because they conflate things in their minds. For most people, their parents did do some good things (although such can probably be improved upon), and to throw those things out is harmful. However, I think our experiences with our own parents can only serve as illustrative, and not like a compass that points south (and even when it points north, remember that compasses don't point to exactly true north!). Basically, we need to determine what we'll do as parents relative to the truth, not relative to what our parents did or didn't do.

I think this is because the bad things our parents did to us are negative things. Yelling at us, assaulting us, etc. The negation of that is not being a good parent. Simply by not doing the particular bad things that our parents did to us, will not make us good parents. It may even lead us into doing new bad things to our kids, that our parents didn't do to us. (e.g., someone who was brutally punished to deal with their behavior problems, and overly controlled, avoids dealing with the issue of their child's behavior, sets not boundaries, and lets them do whatever they want). Parenting is proactive. We need to go out there and figure out the best ways to do things, going beyond our own experience, and our collective experience; and venture into engaging in parental entrepreneurship. Maybe we might not be perfect, but we can certainly do a very good job, and refine any problems as they come up.

Here's something I've been thinking about in particular: property rights, discipline, and respect for others. Our children by necessity live in our property (our house or apartment). That gives us a huge huge amount of control that we can exercise over them within the bounds of not violating the NAP. Such doesn't mean that every bit of that non-initiation-of-force control is ethical or a good idea. Basically, the view I'm developing is treating the house as kind of like a training ground, a microcosm for dealing with the real world in a legitimate manner (we won't replicate illegitimate parts of the real world internally, like most people do, as such reinforces that; but we need to also somehow provide a "training grounds" for our children on how to deal with the evils of the world, in a safe environment here at home where they can't be hurt).

Basically, you're preparing them to live a happy life, in a just manner, with property & self-ownership, while dealing with the injustices of the world. My idea is that you slowly ease into this, both by choice and nature. It starts at birth, with respecting your child's right of self-ownership (although you're a custodian, and act as a rational agent on their behalf; see Roderick Long's philosophy lecture series on this). What I mean here by respecting your child's self-ownership goes beyond not initiating aggression against them in obvious ways, but also means to respect their preferences in behavior. If they're sleeping, looking at something such as a mobile, etc, you don't disturb them unless for a good justifiable reason (e.g., their safety or health). I'm reminded of the episode of The Simpson's where Marge felt neglected & unneeded, so she poked Maggie to wake her up, so she'd "need mommy". The important thing is that our children aren't here for us, but we're here for them. This is the inversion of a lines parents sometimes use: "I wasn't put on this earth to serve you; if anything you to serve me"; "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it"; etc. Of course, it's interdependent, and parents have children because they think it'll make them happier. But in the short run, there are times when the parent's wants conflict with both the child's short-run wants or interests and long-run interests; in those cases, because the parent accepted said obligation, they have to cede way to their child's interests. Of course, what's good for the child is ultimately good for the parent's interests in the long run. This is where time-preference comes into things. Children are a component of their parent's happiness, but not everything revolves around their children; yet, the things independant of their children shouldn't harm their children, and preferrably should help them. Preferrably, there should be reinforcement in increasing happiness & ethicality in all areas of your life; after all, you're the same person whether at work, with friends, or at home. We have to take a unified look at things, and not compartmentalize.

It's also important for parents to realize that chilren simply cannot be happy with bad parents. Parents have all the choices, and children very few, and only what's allowed (or not taken away) by their parents. Parents decide whether or not to create a good family environment. If they create a bad one, they can decide how to cope with that: going to bars, banging their wives like a herd of Vikings, getting strippers or prostitutes, getting smashed, getting high, etc. Of course, they can't escape the unhappiness they've created, and will bear the consequences in the short and long-run; however, the point is they have all the choices. Children don't have the choice to create a happy family environment, and don't have a choice on how they cope with it; they only have choice on how to cope within the constraints imposed by their parents. And even when children in unhappy families are "happy" (e.g., with their best friends) the unhappiness is always there, looming in the background, tainting everything, and it's what they have to go back to. In a bad family, children wake up and fall asleep in the shit their parents decided to create for them.

Let's get into some details. One of the things that a libertarian ought to teach their child is respect for private property, and ownership thereof. This requires respect for their parent's private property. A parent might be within his rights to refuse the child any property rights in anything in the house, but this would be foolish. How can they empathize with the damaging of their parents property, if they have none themselves? However, they have to gain property as appropriate for their age, and as they earn it. If parents give them things without them having earned anything, they'll be in the freebee handout mindset (e.g., welfare). Thus, they should take ownership of their property, and earn it in some way.

Maybe when the child's old enough to have their own room, they should start helping their parents create it, to take ownership of it. This is very different from the typical way parents do things (aww, this is *soooo* cute, we've got to get it for them!). The relationship between a child in their room and their parents, is similar in some respects to that between a tenant and landlord; although more intimate, and the parent has obligations to the child (no landlord has the obligation to rent to anyone). The parent can and ought to set certain boundaries (e.g., no tacks in the walls, no repainting, etc), but should also respect the child's boundaries.

Even though parents have the right not to set aside a child's room as the child's domain, with them having some authority over it, such wouldn't be wise if the goal is the raise a happy and ethical child. The child can best learn to respect other people's boundaries by empathizing with that, thus he needs to have some property of his own that is largely "his domain". So, the issue is that there needs to be rules established that the parent and child agree on and both abide by. Of course, some things the parent can set without further question; e.g., no damaging the room. However, once the rules are set, they apply both ways, and need to be respected in both directions. If parents don't want their children meddling with things in their room, then they ought not to meddle with things in their child's room, rearranging things or "organizing things", unless it's necessary for something. Maybe even have a "do not disturb" sign to hang on the door, indicating the child (or parent) wants privacy. A closed door maybe wouldn't mean not to enter, but just that the person wants isolation from the sound of the rest of the house. Of course, the rules would be there to be used, not abused.

Another thing I was thinking is to put your kid to work as soon as you can. As soon as they have an earned income, they can contribute to a Roth IRA, which produces significant tax-advantages for them. Soon, if you can somehow find a way for your child to legitimately "earn" $4-5k (even if it's from you), that's a huge tax-advantage in a Roth (that amounts to only $77-$96 a week, or $15/day, not even 3 hours of work at minimum wage). The point being teaching your kid financial responsibility from the get-go. You can also create matching schemes and what-not for
contribution to a Roth for your child, or to charities.

Any thoughts or additional ideas?

Random thought: ** True forgiveness requires understanding the evil you're forgiving someone for having done. **

Conrad's response

David J. Heinrich:

A few things that I was just thinking about, spurred on by the thread, 772 Parenting Time Outs.

I think a lot of the problems with parenting are because for some people, it's all a reaction in some way to the way our parent's parented us: Either attempting to do the "negation" of the bad things our parents did to us, or reliving those with our kids. Most people tend to try to replicate the good things, although that too may go if they take an "I'm gonna do the opposite of what my parents did" approach, because they conflate things in their minds.

yeah, it's sort of like the Seinfeld episode where Georgew decided to do the opposite of whatever he would normally do. Although it did work wonders for him. http://www.tv.com/seinfeld/the-opposite/episode/2326/summary.html

David J. Heinrich:
For most people, their parents did do some good things (although such can probably be improved upon), and to throw those things out is harmful. However, I think our experiences with our own parents can only serve as illustrative, and not like a compass that points south (and even when it points north, remember that compasses don't point to exactly true north!). Basically, we need to determine what we'll do as parents relative to the truth, not relative to what our parents did or didn't do.

perhaps the temptation to do the opposite of what our parents did, also has to do with a form of revenge we want to have on them, or in any case the idea that because they perhaps were so bad that any form of behaviour that is like theirs gives us a bad taste in the mouth: our minds are too clouded by their abuse to rationally evaluate what the right kind of behaviour towards our children would be, and instead we just do the opposite of what they did (if they were very uninterested in us, then we may become too interested in our child and dont respect their privacy and their wish to either tell us things or not tell us things. also the example you give below about becoming very lenient in reaction to having received very strict parenting ourselves, is apt)



David J. Heinrich:
I think this is because the bad things our parents did to us are negative things. Yelling at us, assaulting us, etc. The negation of that is not being a good parent. Simply by not doing the particular bad things that our parents did to us, will not make us good parents. It may even lead us into doing new bad things to our kids, that our parents didn't do to us. (e.g., someone who was brutally punished to deal with their behavior problems, and overly controlled, avoids dealing with the issue of their child's behavior, sets not boundaries, and lets them do whatever they want). Parenting is proactive. We need to go out there and figure out the best ways to do things, going beyond our own experience, and our collective experience;

which might only work iof we really do get to terms with the abuse we ourselves have suffered, so that we dont take it out on our children either by doing the same or by doing the exact opposite or something else still



David J. Heinrich:
and venture into engaging in parental entrepreneurship. Maybe we might not be perfect, but we can certainly do a very good job, and refine any problems as they come up.

Here's something I've been thinking about in particular: property rights, discipline, and respect for others. Our children by necessity live in our property (our house or apartment). That gives us a huge huge amount of control that we can exercise over them within the bounds of not violating the NAP. Such doesn't mean that every bit of that non-initiation-of-force control is ethical or a good idea. Basically, the view I'm developing is treating the house as kind of like a training ground, a microcosm for dealing with the real world in a legitimate manner (we won't replicate illegitimate parts of the real world internally,

good that you mention this, as that was one of my main worries when i read the previous. it would be like justifying sending children to the horrible overcrowded and anonymous public schools where they have to interact with bullies, uninterested or violent children, indifferent teachers and so on, because 'that prepares them for the real world'.

David J. Heinrich:
like most people do, as such reinforces that; but we need to also somehow provide a "training grounds" for our children on how to deal with the evils of the world, in a safe environment here at home where they can't be hurt).

Basically, you're preparing them to live a happy life, in a just manner, with property & self-ownership, while dealing with the injustices of the world. My idea is that you slowly ease into this, both by choice and nature. It starts at birth, with respecting your child's right of self-ownership (although you're a custodian, and act as a rational agent on their behalf; see Roderick Long's philosophy lecture series on this). What I mean here by respecting your child's self-ownership goes beyond not initiating aggression against them in obvious ways, but also means to respect their preferences in behavior. If they're sleeping, looking at something such as a mobile, etc, you don't disturb them unless for a good justifiable reason (e.g., their safety or health). I'm reminded of the episode of The Simpson's where Marge felt neglected & unneeded, so she poked Maggie to wake her up, so she'd "need mommy".

yeah, that was a very funny but also very sad moment. I've actually noticed this tendency in myself a bit, when my parents doggy was asleep and I wanted to play with her, I think I have at times woken her up. I wouldnt do that anymore though...

David J. Heinrich:
The important thing is that our children aren't here for us, but we're here for them. This is the inversion of a lines parents sometimes use: "I wasn't put on this earth to serve you; if anything you to serve me"; "I brought you into this world, and I can take you out of it"; etc. Of course, it's interdependent, and parents have children because they think it'll make them happier. But in the short run, there are times when the parent's wants conflict with both the child's short-run wants or interests and long-run interests; in those cases, because the parent accepted said obligation, they have to cede way to their child's interests. Of course, what's good for the child is ultimately good for the parent's interests in the long run. This is where time-preference comes into things. Children are a component of their parent's happiness, but not everything revolves around their children; yet, the things independant of their children shouldn't harm their children, and preferrably should help them. Preferrably, there should be reinforcement in increasing happiness & ethicality in all areas of your life; after all, you're the same person whether at work, with friends, or at home. We have to take a unified look at things, and not compartmentalize.

I think I understand what you're saying, but compartmentalization does seem desirable and harmless when it's done only to an extent. I mean, I act differently with friends than with my girlfriend or with a shopkeeper and so on, and if i have children I take it i would act differently with them too. Of course my set of moral principles will be the same in any case.

David J. Heinrich:
It's also important for parents to realize that chilren simply cannot be happy with bad parents. Parents have all the choices, and children very few, and only what's allowed (or not taken away) by their parents. Parents decide whether or not to create a good family environment. If they create a bad one, they can decide how to cope with that: going to bars, banging their wives like a herd of Vikings, getting strippers or prostitutes, getting smashed, getting high, etc. Of course, they can't escape the unhappiness they've created, and will bear the consequences in the short and long-run; however, the point is they have all the choices. Children don't have the choice to create a happy family environment, and don't have a choice on how they cope with it; they only have choice on how to cope within the constraints imposed by their parents.

yeah, that's a good point about choices

David J. Heinrich:
And even when children in unhappy families are "happy" (e.g., with their best friends) the unhappiness is always there, looming in the background, tainting everything, and it's what they have to go back to. In a bad family, children wake up and fall asleep in the shit their parents decided to create for them.

and there's no escape. There are some things that may help though. A friend of mine was raised in a family where the praents hardly had any emotional contact with him and with the other children. But he and his older sister would talk for hours at night and this provided some form of relief to them both



David J. Heinrich:
Let's get into some details. One of the things that a libertarian ought to teach their child is respect for private property, and ownership thereof. This requires respect for their parent's private property. A parent might be within his rights to refuse the child any property rights in anything in the house, but this would be foolish. How can they empathize with the damaging of their parents property, if they have none themselves?

good point. I am also not really sure in what period of the child's development he realizes that 'the others' have similar needs, desires and feelings as he does. When does he get a cogntive and emotional theory of mind that will help him with empathizing with others (and only then does he understand that when something is taken from him his feelings are similar to the feelings of a person he is taking something from)



David J. Heinrich:
However, they have to gain property as appropriate for their age, and as they earn it. If parents give them things without them having earned anything, they'll be in the freebee handout mindset (e.g., welfare). Thus, they should take ownership of their property, and earn it in some way.

Maybe when the child's old enough to have their own room, they should start helping their parents create it, to take ownership of it. This is very different from the typical way parents do things (aww, this is *soooo* cute, we've got to get it for them!).

excellent point. although of course at times and in moderation it is no problem to simply give the child a present, something fun or interesting without him having had to work for it. (Life hands those things too!)



David J. Heinrich:
The relationship between a child in their room and their parents, is similar in some respects to that between a tenant and landlord; although more intimate, and the parent has obligations to the child (no landlord has the obligation to rent to anyone). The parent can and ought to set certain boundaries (e.g., no tacks in the walls, no repainting, etc), but should also respect the child's boundaries.

Even though parents have the right not to set aside a child's room as the child's domain, with them having some authority over it, such wouldn't be wise if the goal is the raise a happy and ethical child. The child can best learn to respect other people's boundaries by empathizing with that, thus he needs to have some property of his own that is largely "his domain".

see above, with the theory of mind

David J. Heinrich:
So, the issue is that there needs to be rules established that the parent and child agree on and both abide by. Of course, some things the parent can set without further question; e.g., no damaging the room. However, once the rules are set, they apply both ways, and need to be respected in both directions. If parents don't want their children meddling with things in their room, then they ought not to meddle with things in their child's room, rearranging things or "organizing things", unless it's necessary for something. Maybe even have a "do not disturb" sign to hang on the door, indicating the child (or parent) wants privacy. A closed door maybe wouldn't mean not to enter, but just that the person wants isolation from the sound of the rest of the house. Of course, the rules would be there to be used, not abused.

yeah, and here agin the universality of the moral rules is important, as the child as you wrote too spots hypocricy like no other

David J. Heinrich:
Another thing I was thinking is to put your kid to work as soon as you can. As soon as they have an earned income, they can contribute to a Roth IRA, which produces significant tax-advantages for them. Soon, if you can somehow find a way for your child to legitimately "earn" $4-5k (even if it's from you), that's a huge tax-advantage in a Roth (that amounts to only $77-$96 a week, or $15/day, not even 3 hours of work at minimum wage). The point being teaching your kid financial responsibility from the get-go. You can also create matching schemes and what-not for
contribution to a Roth for your child, or to charities.

what ages are you thinking about when the child can start working? and do you mean things like mowing the lawn, taking out garbage, and so on?



David J. Heinrich:
Any thoughts or additional ideas?

i dont quite understand the idea of 'entrepreneurship' in parenting yet. Did you mean that proactivity defines entrepreneurship, or are you talking about allocating property to the child and having the child work for his allowance and so on?

David J. Heinrich:
Random thought: ** True forgiveness requires understanding the evil you're forgiving someone for having done. **

Do you mean that the person who has wronged you has to understand the evil he has done to you (before you can forgive him), or that you yourself should wholly understand it? Also, this may be required for true forgiveness, but is it also enough for forgiveness, is it not just a necessary but also a sufficient condition?

Due to Stef's podcasts I've started to change my mind about the need for and nature of forgiveness. I used to have a quasi-religious conception of it, but now I am more inclined to just getting the bad people out of your life and not worry about forgiveness and possibly being enslaved by the supposed necessity of it

David J. Heinrich said

Conrad, thanks for your thoughtful and insightful response. Here's a response to some questions & issues..

Conrad:
I think I understand what you're saying, but compartmentalization does seem desirable and harmless when it's done only to an extent...Of course my set of moral principles will be the same in any case.

Oh sure, I agree. I'm just saying that what someone does at work, at home, with friends, in stores, etc all affects who they are and how they interact with everyone in their life. Certainly, you compartmentalize some things, and keep them separate as appropriate. I.e., you do not burden your co-workers, unless good friends, with relationship issues. Nor do you burden your fiance or wife with the stresses of your work, although you may talk to her about it when needed.

Conrad:
although of course at times and in moderation it is no problem to simply give the child a present, something fun or interesting without him having had to work for it.

I agree here too, with emphasis being on the moderation. Generosity when appropriate, and to an appropriate degree. "Sweet 16" parties are spoiled brat non-sense.

Conrad:
what ages are you thinking about when the child can start working? and do you mean things like mowing the lawn, taking out garbage, and so on?

Well, I dunno, as soon as they can do anything, chores around the house. 2 maybe? The younger the better. This was more a "legal issue" than a personal relationship one. The issue is, how much money could you justify paying your child for the "work" they do? You might need to provide a "justification" to people who'd question if you're just using that as a loophole to give them tax-free money in a Roth IRA (which, of course, you are).

Conrad:
i dont quite understand the idea of 'entrepreneurship' in parenting yet. Did you mean that proactivity defines entrepreneurship, or are you talking about allocating property to the child and having the child work for his allowance and so on?

What I mean by entrepreneurship is being proactive, going out there and figuring things out, trying new things, doing research, being self-evaluative, etc. What the child does with their property is more like their personal entrepreneurship.

Conrad:
Do you mean that the person who has wronged you has to understand the evil he has done to you (before you can forgive him), or that you yourself should wholly understand it? Also, this may be required for true forgiveness, but is it also enough for forgiveness, is it not just a necessary but also a sufficient condition?

I was talking about it primarily from the victim's pov, and yes, I view it as necessary, but not sufficient. Certainly, if the perpetrator doesn't understand how they harmed the person, they're undeserving of forgiveness (which doesn't mean it won't be bestowed upon them; we all get many things we didn't deserve; e.g., there's no reason we deserved to be born in a 1st world country, not a 3rd world one). There are also different "levels" of forgivness; forgiveness doesn't mean forgetting and being foolish. Depending on the relationship & it's quality, it might mean trying to restore the relationship. But not necessarily. It might just mean not seeking retribution.

This is pretty difficult to read through, David. Where is the original thread?

The entire thread is here, although some may not be able to access it for obvious reasons:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/integrated_board.html

Goto that webpage, then search for "Proactive Parental Entrepreneurship" (without quotes), and click on the result. Then click on "show entire thread" to see the thread.

This is hard to read. If you edit your posts and merely put [quote] tags around what Conrad says and around what you say, it would be much easier. I mean, the content of the discussion is clear and logical, but I'm constantly distracted and slowed down by trying to figure out who is saying what.

Regarding the content: I agree with everything David said, and some of Conrad's qualifiers. Although I want children, I do not have any (and now I think that I will likely never have any), but I have thought a lot about how I'd raise my child. My conclusions (although I'm always revising my ideas as I learn more) are that I would want to treat my child as I would want to be treated in an ideal society, for the reasons David gave: how else will they learn what an ideal society is, especially if I act less than ideally, and even more especially if I act less than ideally while hypocritically lauding the ideals I ignore.

But here's a quandary I have: if a child can't learn about an ideal society (freedom, respect, property, etc.) without growing up in it, then how did we learn about it? I realize David does not say it's the only way a child can learn to "do right," but that it's the best way. Is that all there is? By living the example and creating the ideal society within my own home and family, would I be merely improving the odds my child will learn to be a good person?

In asking that question just now, I realized that "just improving the odds" is not a slight thing - it is a very important thing to do, especially with someone I would love so much and invest so much of myself in. But I've always considered how a parent raises their child as of the ultimate importance. Like if Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson were raised in a loving, respectful environment, they would have been Mohandas Gandhi or Lysander Spooner.

But it kind of lets the air out of my idea of what raising a child should be. If a child from a mediocre - or even bad - family can learn and grow so much and so well, and if a child from a great environment can "go bad" and disrespect others' property and harm others (hopefully both of these scenarios are the exception, but they happen), then is it so important that parents always do the right thing? I guess a better way to ask that last question is: since people learn differently, have different preferences, need and desire different things, if some parents do disrespect their child's property or coddle their children while simultaneously teaching some of the principles of liberty (or teaching many of them, but poorly or hypocritically)?