Parenting restricting the liberty of their children?

[Hazmatac]

Should adults have the right to restrict the freedom of their children, like "be home before 7" or "you can't have a boyfriend" or whatever. Is this right? What should parents have the right to do and not to do, and why?

[Zip]

Should adults have the right to restrict the freedom of their children, like "be home before 7" or "you can't have a boyfriend" or whatever. Is this right? What should parents have the right to do and not to do, and why?

Yes.

Yes it is right. I, as a parent am responsible for my children. They are children, they do not know how to behave as adults and their experiences are not equal to any task that is likely to come up. Saying be home before 7 is not a restriction on their liberty it is an acknowledgment that the child needs protection. How many times a year do small children fall into the trap of some pedophile who asks them to "Help me look for my lost puppy"?

I know there is a tendency for kids to consider every restriction placed on them by their parents as simple power games or stupid restrictions on their freedom but once you have children of your own that silly idea dissipates.

Parents should treat their children like human beings and teach them how to think. They should prepare them to deal with the world as it is, not a sugar coated Beaver Cleaver version, nor the nightmare - every stranger is Charlie Manson - version but a realistic preparation for the world they will have to live in.

[DavidOdden]

The principle that parents should follow, in terms of what they allow or prohibit, is that they are the custodians of the child's rights, and their purpose as parents is to create a fully-functioning, autonomous and responsible human. Restrictions should not be gratuitous, they should have a clear relation to that end. Parents should always be cautiously pushing the edge with responsibility, allowing the child to try new things, to see if the child can reliably handle the new situation. Eventually the child will have to be on their own, and they need to have some basis for deciding between right and wrong actions. For instance, I would say that they need to grasp the concept of "debt", not abstractly but concretely, because they have actually acquired and discharged a debt.

[Jill]

Should adults have the right to restrict the freedom of their children, like "be home before 7" or "you can't have a boyfriend" or whatever. Is this right? What should parents have the right to do and not to do, and why?

It should not be illegal for the sake of their responsibility as parents and their fallible nature (they might not know yet how to solve the problem without restricting their children's freedom.)

If you ask if it's right, meaning, if it's moral and proper, it's not. Parents should not be authorities over their children. They should settle arguments through reason, not through force. And ultimately leave each of their children to live by the judgement of their individual own minds, without having to act under coercion or contradiction. The parental role is that of a good adviser and facilitator. Parents should help their children know what is better for them to want and help them get it until they don't need the help anymore and can help themselves.

The separation of childhood and adulthood to justify restriction of freedom against an individual is a form of prejudice and should be discarded.

[JMeganSnow]

Parents should not be authorities over their children.

Oh yes they should, because there's a limit to how well you can reason with children, and when they've toppled headfirst out of the tree or jammed a fork into an outlet, it's TOO LATE.

I see parents all the time who are (for whatever reason) unwilling or unable to just tell their 3-year-old "no", and this is a vital part of being a responsible parent. Every single grab for a candy bar or cry for a balloon does not need to be answered by an elaborate negotiation, although it IS wise to explain to your children why it's YOUR decision and not theirs and remind them gently when they forget. It makes it easier for them to accept that "no".

[RationalBiker]

They should settle arguments through reason, not through force.

Do you have a child or children? Do you think that most children (say 2-12 for the sake of argument) have fully developed rational faculties? Do you think that children those ages generally have had enough life experience to integrate the principles necessary to make responsible choices in light of decisions that they may have to face in situations when the parent is not around? Do you think that if a 14 year old girl wants to have a 20 year old boyfriend and wants to sleep over his house that you should let her do that as long as she's making an informed decision based on the rational guidance a parent has provided her?

If you explain thoroughly to a 5 year old why he shouldn't go out to the midnight matinee of Saw 16 and he decides to go anyway, should you let him go?

[SherryTX]

It is my RESPONSIBILITY - not just right - to restrict my child from doing certain things.

As a parent, I need to yes - teach them how to think for themselves, provide for them, and provide bounderies for them.

I have 5 kids, and let me tell you - there have been several occaisions where if my husband and I hadn't restricted my children from wanting to do certain things, they would have found themselves in a whole heap of trouble.

It is because (as others have stated) that children are usually capable of making correct judgements in all cases. Some very basic judegments. Until they reach that point (or move out of my house) I will restrict as necessary.

By the way - even my 18 year old son has some restrictions placed on him, though not as much of course as his younger sisters, because he still lives under my roof and has to obey our rules. Sure - one could just look at that as a respect thing - but because I do require some things of him still, one could say some of his "liberties" are restricted.