Ephesians 6:1-4 (KJV) “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

Proverbs 13:24 (KJV) “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.”

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is defined by the Ludwig von Mises Institute as “an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression” is defined as the “initiation” of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property.”

At first glance, the Non-Aggression Principle seems to contradict Biblical parenting in the use of force or corporal punishment in disciplining children. My thesis in this article is that the use of corporal punishment is consistent with the Non-Aggression Principle as a just means to defend the child’s right to life and to punish aggressive acts.

The Non-Aggression Principle is based on the right of self-ownership. The right of self-ownership implies the inalienable right to life and the inalienable right to liberty. The right to life is a negative right defined as the legal claim that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate and just right of self-ownership. The right of self-ownership implies apart from the right to life, the right to liberty of the freedom to choose ends or to adopt ideas that otherwise do not aggress against the legitimate and just self-ownership or property rights of others. Rothbard argues that life is an objective, ultimate value. It is axiomatic for the basis of political ethics since to argue against life would be to commit self-contradiction in the argument. See Ethics of Liberty, pages 32-33.

The parent-child relationship is a unique relationship in regards to political ethics. Parents in exercising their right to liberty exercise their freedom to choose means and in their exercise of these rights at times produce children. The child from conception is endowed with the inalienable right to life and no one has the right to aggress against the child’s legitimate and just right of self-ownership. Since the parents have their inalienable right to liberty and the child has an inalienable right to life, conflict invariably arises between parental rights to liberty and the child’s right to life as the child’s life is dependent on the parents, especially from the mother during pregnancy. Children further lack the capacity at early ages to defend their right of self-ownership and their property rights. Since life is the ultimate value and axiomatic to political ethics, conflict between the parental inalienable right to liberty or the freedom to choose the means to their ends and the child’s right to life must be decided by the libertarian legal theorist or arbitrator by giving priority to the child’s right to life.

Priority given to the child’s right to life is further necessary due to the the child’s defenseless life being the product of the parents’ exercise of their inalienable right to liberty. If an actor’s actions place another person in a situation of foreseeable harm or imminent danger, such actor has a duty to take action to mitigate the harm done to such other person or else face potential legal action for aggression. For example, if walking along a pier, I accidentally bump into to a person who then falls into the ocean, I have a duty to mitigate the harm done to such person by calling for help or rescuing the person myself lest I open myself to the potential consequence of the person drowning and being charged with killing said person. Likewise, if I invite someone on a ride in an airplane I own, I cannot legitimately decide mid-flight to exercise my property right to exclude said person from my plane which would be to place said person in a position of foreseeable harm and imminent danger most certainly which would end said person’s life. A child’s position in life at a young age is comparable to such scenarios. The actions of parents have placed children in a vulnerable state wherein the parent must take action to defend the right of self-ownership and the property rights of children until they are capable of providing the defense of such rights on their own. Such capability would vary on a case-by-case basis according to the mental and physical capabilities of the child. Now, Rothbard in his masterpiece, Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 14 in regards to the relationship of parents and children rejects as fallacious an argument that parents have any positive obligation to their children due to the fact that such a positive obligation would aggress against the parent’s right of self-ownership. However, as described in the above scenarios and examples, such parent waives such rights of self-ownership being estopped to make a legal claim for such negative right, due to the reliance of the child on the parent for its own right of self-ownership or property rights.

The duty of the parents toward their child is equivalent to that of a fiduciary relationship. The parents would have a duty to look after the best interests of the child with respect to their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. In essence, parents are trustees or agents or guardian ad litems with respect to the life, liberty, and property of their children. See Ethics of Liberty, page 139. Parents must defend these rights in accordance with the best interest of the child according to the parents inalienable right of liberty to choose those ends as long as they do not conflict with the child’s right to life.

Having established the duty of parents to defend the child’s right of self-ownership and property, we must turn to the question of parents actions towards children to determine whether they are acts of aggression and acts of defense. Murray Rothbard states that “in concrete cases, we [the libertarian legal theorist or legal arbitrator] must decide whether any single act is aggressive or defensive.” Ethics of Liberty, pg 52. An analysis of this question provides an answer to the issues of the legality of abortion, vaccination, health care, and parental discipline.

If we have established the premise that a child’s right of life takes priority over the parent’s right of liberty due to life being an objective, ultimate value in political ethics and parental actions causing the child’s vulnerability in their inability to defend their inalienable right to life and thus if we have established the fiduciary relationship between parents and children, then it becomes fairly easy to determine that abortion is a criminal act equivalent of murder. Parental duty to vaccinate or provide health care for a child would require evaluation on a case by case basis. Parents subject themselves to criminal liability if a private court would find that their actions not to vaccinate or not to provide health care to their child violated their duty to defend their child’s right to life. It must be emphasized that no one has a positive right to vaccination or a right to health care. However, parents have a duty with respect to a child’s sickness or potential sickness to take action to preserve the child’s right to life. What actions being required to preserve the child’s right to life being dependent on the facts of each concrete case.

Similarly, parental acts of discipline would require analysis on a case-by-case basis. Such parental acts of discipline are either aggressive or defensive. Here also we find the seemingly contradiction between Biblical parenting,which would allow for corporal punishment, and the Non-Aggression Principle. However, corporal punishment is an act of parental discipline that is either aggressive or defensive. This premise requires explanation as it is controversial to those who would promote peaceful parenting or state that child corporal punishment violates the NAP. A defense of corporal punishment as an act of defending the child’s rights is therefore required.

P1 From Ephesians 6:1-4 and Proverbs 13:24, the premise can be deduced that some corporal punishment [from a parent to a child] is a just means for a child to live a long life.

P2 [Pursuant to the NAP as founded on the right of self-ownership and as explained in the aforementioned argument], parents [as defenders of their child’s right to life] are users of just means [according to their freedom to choose just means to ends] for a child to live a long life.

Conclusion: Parents [as defenders of their child’s right to life] are users of some corporal punishment as a just means for their child to live a long life.

The conclusion has the effect of making some use of corporal punishment by parents in disciplining their children consistent with the NAP in regards to defending the child’s right to life. Therefore, the use of corporal punishment in such instances is justified pursuant to the political ethic of the NAP.

The first premise is likely to receive the greatest challenge (especially from those who reject the truth of God’s Word) and needs the most explanation as it is not clear how corporal punishment defends a child’s right to life. Examples of corporal punishment in this regards would be those that discipline a child from putting their life in harms way. A child must learn obedience to instruction of parents to keep themselves out of harm’s way. Children, on their own, do not appreciate the danger of running into traffic or playing with fire. Foreseeable bodily harm or death is likely in such instances. Corporal punishment is a just means to defend the child’s right to life, using it as an indication and appreciation of pain as an alternative to the pain from the child’s lack of obedience and disregard for their right to life which the parents have a duty to defend. Furthermore, children do not appreciate their rights of liberty or property or the respective rights of others. Children committing aggressive acts on others are also justly punished by corporal punishment as long as it is proportional to the aggressive act they have committed. Pursuant to the Bible and the NAP, parental acts of discipline with respect to corporal punishment can become aggressive acts if not proportional to acts the child has committed or if not proportional to the defense of the child’s right to life as Scripture states “provoke not your children to wrath.”