Libertarians, of all people, should realize that absolutely no violence of any form against children is acceptable. *Any* striking of a child constitutes assault and abuse, and libertarians should be the *first* ones to stand up in support of common sense laws that would make it clear that all violence against children is entirely unacceptable.

There is a huge difference between abuse and discipline. Libertarians would be the first to tell you its none of the government's damn business how to raise your child. If smacking the back of a hand saves a life it's worth it and justified. How else does a toddler learn? You can't reason with them. They're toddlers for Pete's sake!

I'll bet there's one word a child learns the meaning of before and better than the word "no." That word is "hot." Not that I advocate teaching them "hot" by having them touch a hot stove, but some things are a rite of passage.

It seems obvious that learning the meaning of the word "no" is critical to a child's survival, and when they are pre-verbal, alternate forms of communication may be called for.

Cats cuff their kittens, so it isn't like it's unnatural to swat a hand or diaper-padded bottom. It's important to remember that children use the same techniques on their parents when they become senile, so follow the Golden Rule.

At the very least, one objective is to raise a child who does not hit others after any age at which they are in danger of being tried as an adult.

Whether that involves spanking, is not something that can be codified and administered by the justice system. Voters, their elected representatives and government employees don't have a great record at raising other people's children.

If the "damage" a parent does is no greater than the "damage" a cat does to her kittens when she cuffs them for being too rough, then I say the far greater risk comes from involving government in family matters.

I heard one time that comedian Christopher Titus once said: "Mothers give you knowledge, fathers make you earn it." Case in point, on his show, little Chris was playing around with plugs near a socket and was ready to plug it in. His mother was about to say to be careful or he'll be electricuted. However, Chris' father stopped her and dared him to plug it in. Little Chris plugged it in, and got electricuted. The father then said: "Well. You'll learn never to do that again."

My dad, the electrical engineer, says kids who have things snatched away from them learn to grab things when you're not looking. He also says he was glad he had dogs before he had kids because he learned not to punish them for coming when called.

I also remember very clearly him suggesting that I imagine myself in my little sister's shoes after a fight we had when I was 7. They were Keds tennis shoes.

Talking works great, but listening works even better. He always tried to ask us questions to see how much we understood.

The lesson Little Chris learned, above, is "don't trust dad," or "don't trust electricity," or "don't do what dad says." I know adults who are still afraid to plug things in.

I think mine showed me how to use a volt-ohm meter. I learned to trust his advice without having to be shocked.

I don't think that law's anything but legislative waste. Assault laws should suffice when there is real child abuse. Of course, the biggest perpetrator of child abuse in America is the government. The Foster Care, Juvenile Jail, and Public School systems are loaded with child abuse and the Children & Youth agencies are actively falsifying reports (by automatically assuming a kid who was beat up by siblings was beat up by a parent). The government needs to reign itself in first.

So lets raise our children to know no limits to there behavior. Once they have learned that they will not SUFFER consequences for their actions, don't come to me when my kids brutalize your kids in school. It is funny how the big government types love to tell us how to raise our children and when the child acts up in public they blame the parents.

J.L. Barber -

What we are saying is that parents should be free to discipline their children in any way they see fit as long as there is no abuse or torture. We just don't believe that the government should be so involved.

T.L. it obvious you are for mummy government. While I don't agree with abuse. YES! the government should stay out of our business. Next they will tell us when to use the bathroom.

The current "broad" language of the suggested bill is specific to children under the age of four. This is a classic case of passing superfluous legislation that can only serve to be perverted by our media and judicial system.

When I was four years old, my brother struck me unintentionally with a stick, giving me a black eye. He was six years old. With legislation like this put into play, there are two realistic travesties created: 1) He could be arrested for a misdemeanor (keep in mind, we try 12-year-olds as adults for some felonies) or 2) my parents would have been investigated in an unreasonable manner by over-zealous day care employees eager to act as arm-chair judges.

This kind of micro-managing law serves only to legislate common sense, and undermine the basic freedoms it claims to protect.

Why is the National LP complaining about a state law? Shouldn't that be the job of the local LP? The Congress, and the President as well, is cooking up plenty of things for us and yet we are wasting our time over this.

Jeremy -

We complain about all federal, state, and local laws and actions that lack common sense.

Jeremy -

We also complain about actions that are dangerous to individual liberties, impair the economy, and diminish states rights.

If it is meant to address abuse, then it is redundant; there are ample abuse laws in place now.
If it is not meant to address abuse, then it is an invasion of privacy. Morals imposed by law go too far.

Let's just cut to the chase and have a Nutritional and Safety Inspector (NASI) appointed to each and every household in the U.S. to prevent us from injuring ourselves or others.
Our lives belong to the State and our every action needs to be regulated by the elite that never makes a mistake nor is corrupted by power.

Off topic but -- we wouldn't run a candidate if Ron Paul received his party's nomination, would we? You never know.

Mat -

Sadly, the G.O.P. will not nominate Ronald Paul. Besides, the traditional conservatives (namely, the fiscal conservatives, states rights conservatives, and non-interventionist conservatives) and libertarians have little-to-no power in the G.O.P.
Instead, the nomination will go to someone from the social conservative, Religious Right, and neocon camp.

Ron Paul has now publically said that he will not seek a third party nomination if he loses the Republican race, in which he has about as much chance of winning as the LP nominee for President does in actually winning the general election in 2008. He has also filed to run for Congress again in 2008.

Of course, he can flip-flop on that, he is a politician after all, although more principled than the average Congressbeing.

The key question for us should be what is more important to him, loyalty to the Republican party or loyalty to conscience.

Ron Paul triangulates effectively between the Republican, Constitution and Libertarian positions and has done a lot to recast the LP in that image.

Of course, a true libertarian or even an honest constitutionalist knows that it is the moral imperative of any sitting member of the House to formally introduce a resolution for impeachment of Bush, Cheney and crew. Ron Paul is a sitting member of Congress. Filing impeachment would thrust him in the news and give antiwar Republicans and independents a true choice. Otherwise it's mostly 1988 redux.

In the extremely unlikely event he gets the Republican nod, the LP can reposition itself to triangulate (quadrangulate?) between libertarian, Democrat, Green and non-voters.

Actually, we should do that anyway, regardless of who the Republicans nominate.

The bottom line here is that the government has NO business telling us how to discipline our kids. Be it state government or federal government.

If you saw an adult about to walk into an oncoming bus, you would yell out a warning or if your were close enough reach out and grab the person, pulling them back from danger. Would you strike that person? You could simply have picked her up and moved her stating "We don't touch outlets." Toddlers are naturally curious and I am sure no one would not want to make their toddler scared to investigate it's environment for fear of getting whacked. There is absolutely no good reason to strike a child. Were it an adult, would it be ok? Then why is it ok to strike children? Because they can't fight back? Striking an adult is battery. So should it be for children.

A spanking on a diapered fanny is hardly abuse. A slap on the back of the hand for being bad is not abuse. There is a difference between abuse and discipline. Punching, sitting on, kicking, choking, burning with a cigarette, obviously abuse. It's not hard to know the difference between discipline and abuse. The point is, the government shouldn't have that say. As some here have correctly stated, there are already laws against abuse, but to define that as any contact other than hugging? Stupid, just stupid. Next they'll say hugging is child molestation. Nursing will be pornography. Witholding dessert for not finishing dinner will be criminal before you know it. Video games will be a state provided entitlement and not allowing your children to play them when they haven't done their homework will be an infringement on their rights. This is just all ridiculous.

Of course it should be up to the parents. To a point.
I have seen children who have been abused (not just a spanking when they deserved it) and I have seen children that were coddled.
There are parents who don't abuse but take the spanking too far (for every or minor offenses).
I believe spanking works best when it is used sparingly like it was on me. I can count on one hand the times I was spanked. But I remember those times and it was when I truly deserved it.
Whatever my beliefs I should be free to raise my kids according to them (excepting true abuse of course). So should those I disagree with.
This is just an example of the slippery slope we've been on for years.