Free Friends Forum 35: Trust & Autonomy for All Ages--Scientist/Voluntaryist or Pet/Slave in the Crib?
Trust Vs Mistrust; Autonomy Vs Doubt & Shame--Erik Erikson's First & Second Stages Upon Which Peaceful Parenting Generates a Voluntaryist World of Peaceful Self-Authorized & Sovereign Individuals
POWER, DOMINATION, AND VIOLENCE ARE THE THREE CORNERSTONES OF MAINSTREAM PARENTING. Meaningfulideas, May 23, 2024. 4:23 We have a choice to hold power over our children, or to share power with them. We have a choice to control our children's behavior, or help them develop life skills, and a deep relationship with themselves. We have a choice to place ourselves above them, and be our children's authority, or walk alongside them as a trusted guide.
I created the concept of "PARENTARCHY--The Elephant in the Womb" to expose and challenge the taken-for-granted immemorial and immoral right of parents to use power to rule their children. It seems many parents justify their use of power over children—the use of punishment/threats and rewards/bribes—on the basis that children are not capable of thinking, cannot be responsible for themselves, cannot learn self-control, and will choose harmfully—thus, they need to be controlled “for their own good” until they become adults at 18 (or whatever the “legal” age is).
THE BEGINNING OF LIFE | SPECIALIST ALISON GOPNIK Maria Farinha Filmes, May 14, 2016. 0:21
THE SCIENTIST IN THE CRIB—WHAT EARLY LEARNING TELLS US ABOUT THE MIND by Alison Gopnik Ph.D, Andrew N. Meltzoff Ph.D, Patricia K. Kuhl Ph.D
“Babies’ minds are at least as rich, as abstract, as complex, as powerful as ours. BABIES THINK, REASON, LEARN, AND KNOW AS WELL AS ACT AND FEEL. At the same time, what they think is often radically different from what we think. CHILDREN ARE BOTH SURPRISINGLY LIKE US AND SURPRISINGLY UNLIKE US. THERE ARE MORAL IMPLICATIONS TO THIS NEW VIEW OF BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN. The sort of policy discussions we described earlier are geared to the question of how we can turn babies and children into the right sort of grown-ups. BUT THE NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN ARE FULLY HUMAN BEINGS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. We may not have much control over how children turn out, but we do have enormous power over their lives as children, and those lives are as valuable and important as adult lives. CHILDREN AREN’T JUST VALUABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL TURN INTO GROWN-UPS BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE THINKING, FEELING, INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE THEMSELVES.”
Join Our Free Friends Forum For A Spirited, Respectful Discussion
Saturday, March 15, 9PM (for South Pacific, Asia)
Sunday, March 16, 9AM (for North/South America, Europe)
Note: New Zealand time
Jack Carney is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/8245320024
Meeting ID: 824 532 0024
Passcode: 772388
New Zealand Time Converter
https://dateful.com/convert/new-zealand
Personal World Clock tinyurl.com/bdef97z7
“WHEN SOMEONE SAYS, "I'M DOING THIS FOR YOUR OWN GOOD," rest assured it is not for your own good. Or at least it's not in your best interest, according to your own judgement, in this particular moment, and usually it is decidedly against your best interest by any measure.” Teacher Tom, Nov 26, 2019
EXAMPLES OF PARENTS WHO DO NOT TRUST THEIR CHILD AND WHO BELIEVE THEY MUST USE POWER OVER TO CONTROL “FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILD”.
I consider these beliefs by parents to be, unfortunately, the Status Quo of parenting (they are demostrating PARENTARCHY) that insists—contrary to the evidence in the book The Scientist in the Crib--that children cannot be granted self-responsibility and self-control because they are developmentally incapable of it and that the parent always knows best.
ONE WOMAN ON SUBSTACK:
“When my oldest daughter, the one who just got married, was at the end of second grade, we were in a battle of wills and I was losing. I’m sure many parents can relate. What the books tell you is to design consequences that are related to the transgression but if you can think that fast, you’re smarter than me. These are, after all, Machiavellian midgets with nothing better to do than figure out how to get what they want while thwarting what you want—which is for them to be their best self.”
‘So the three tools, once you eliminate physical violence which we are all in agreement, which is not really effective...so what you are left with as a parent is bribes, threats and manipulation.
“So using reason to say [to a child] here’s why you shouldn’t run carrying your dog, your little baby sister over a cement floor, and saying, you could drop her, she could crack her head, she could die…I found that reason actually is too much for kids”
ANOTHER WOMAN ON SUBSTACK:
“...The argument that children are autonomous and completely able to make their own choices, presumes they even have the mental capacity to do so. THEY DON'T. For crying out loud, our frontal lobes aren't even fully formed until we're in our mid-20's! Without any measure of "control" over children, they're going to eat pure garbage, stick their fingers in light sockets, and play with knives. Children cannot be counted upon to exercise complete "free will" in a responsible manner. In fact, toddlers CAN be counted upon to run out in front of cars. And in schools, they can be counted upon to go along with a liberal teacher's presumption that they need a sex change.”
THE SCIENTIST IN THE CRIB—WHAT EARLY LEARNING TELLS US ABOUT THE MIND by Alison Gopnik Ph.D, Andrew N. Meltzoff Ph.D, Patricia K. Kuhl Ph.D
“THE DOMINANT VIEW WAS THAT CHILDREN WERE ESSENTIALLY DEFECTIVE ADULTS. THEY WERE DEFINED BY THE THINGS THEY DIDN’T KNOW AND COULDN’T DO. Of course, there was something right about this; we can all see that there are many things children don’t know and can’t do, and in our role as parents we focus on remedying those defects. But this picture of children was also deeply misleading.
“It was a picture of a sort of “great chain of knowing,” with babies at one end and philosophers at the other. ACCORDING TO THIS PICTURE, CHILDREN (AND “PRIMITIVE” PEOPLES AND WOMEN) HAD CHARACTERISTICS THAT WERE THE VERY OPPOSITE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF REASON, SCIENCE, AND CIVILIZATION. THEY WERE INTUITIVE AND NOT RATIONAL, NATURAL AND NOT CIVILIZED, DRIVEN BY PASSIONS RATHER THAN GUIDED BY PLANS. THEIR MINDS WERE CAPTURED BY APPEARANCES, SUPERSTITIOUS AND MAGICAL. THE YOUNGER CHILDREN WERE, THE FURTHER REMOVED THEY WERE FROM KNOWLEDGE. NEW- BORN BABIES WERE, LITERALLY, NOTHING AT ALL.
“There was also an opposing view, articulated most clearly by the Romantic poets and philosophers of the early nineteenth century. THE ROMANTIC VIEW WAS THAT CHILDREN (AND “PRIMITIVE” PEOPLES AND WOMEN) HAD A SPECIAL KIND OF KNOWLEDGE JUST BECAUSE THEY WERE SO IGNORANT. BUT EVEN THE ROMANTIC VIEW OF CHILDREN SHARED THE CENTRAL ASSUMPTIONS OF THE DOMINANT VIEW. The Romantics actually agreed that children were intuitive, irrational, uncivilized, governed by passion, and at the furthest remove from science. They just thought that those were all good things rather than bad, powers and not defects, sources of knowledge and not impediments to it.
“CHILDREN ARE NOT BLANK TABLETS OR UNBRIDLED APPETITES OR EVEN INTUITIVE SEERS. BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN THINK, OBSERVE, AND REASON. They consider evidence, draw conclusions, do experiments, solve problems, and search for the truth. Of course, they don’t do this in the self-conscious way that scientists do. And the problems they try to solve are everyday problems about what people and objects and words are like, rather than arcane problems about stars and atoms. BUT EVEN THE YOUNGEST BABIES KNOW A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE WORLD AND ACTIVELY WORK TO FIND OUT MORE.
“That undermines the entire picture of the great chain of knowing. Women and people from other cultures have, after all, at least escaped the negative implications of being “childlike.” (Nowadays it’s okay to think women and people from other cultures are intuitive and natural only if you take the positive, Romantic view.) BUT IF EVEN CHILDREN THEMSELVES AREN’T “CHILDLIKE,” THE WHOLE PICTURE COLLAPSES. THERE ARE NO SAVAGES, NOBLE OR OTHERWISE, AND THERE ARE NO “CHILDREN OF NATURE,” NOT EVEN AMONG CHILDREN. THERE ARE ONLY HUMAN BEINGS, CHILDREN AND GROWN-UPS, WOMEN AND MEN, HUNTER-GATHERERS AND SCIENTISTS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT’S GOING ON.” p.12-14
“…we parents have responsibility without power. Mothers and fathers are at the mercy of innumerable accidents—accidents about the random genetic mix of temperament and ability, accidents about how that mix interacts with our own temperaments and abilities, accidents about what our lives happen to be like in the few years that constitute a childhood, accidents about what the rest of the world has to offer our children.
“There is also a deeper sense in which we have less control than responsibility. THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ENTERPRISE, AFTER ALL, IS TO END UP CREATING AN AUTONOMOUS AGENT, A PERSON WHO CAN LEAVE US, WHO CAN CHOOSE TO MAKE GRAVE MISTAKES AND DECIDE TO BE THOROUGHLY MISERABLE. It’s like falling utterly, madly, deeply in love and yet knowing that in twenty years the object of your affections will leave you for other lovers and, in fact, that your job is to make your beloved leave you for other lovers. The very best outcome is that our children will end up as decent, independent adults who will regard us with bemused and tolerant affection; for them to continue to treat us with the passionate attachment of infancy would be pathological. “ALMOST EVERY HARD DECISION OF CHILD-REARING, EACH TINY STEP—Should I let her cross the street? Can he walk to school yet? Should I look in her dresser drawer?—IS ABOUT HOW TO GIVE UP CONTROL, NOT HOW TO INCREASE IT; HOW TO CEDE POWER, NOT HOW TO GAIN IT. It is no surprise, then, that parents feel both a deep need for guidance and a deep ambivalence about it. We wish someone would tell us what to do, but on the other hand, we don’t want anybody telling us what to do.” P.199-200
“One reason we care about babies is that we are responsible for what happens to them. But another, equally important reason to care about development is not that babies will turn into grown-ups but that we were once babies. WHEN WE STUDY CHILDREN, WE ARE STUDYING OURSELVES; when we see how they develop, we are seeing how we became what we are.”
“BABIES’ MINDS ARE AT LEAST AS RICH, AS ABSTRACT, AS COMPLEX, AS POWERFUL AS OURS. BABIES THINK, REASON, LEARN, AND KNOW AS WELL AS ACT AND FEEL. At the same time, what they think is often radically different from what we think. Children are both surprisingly like us and surprisingly unlike us.
“THERE ARE MORAL IMPLICATIONS TO THIS NEW VIEW OF BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN. The sort of policy discussions we described earlier are geared to the question of how we can turn babies and children into the right sort of grown-ups. BUT THE NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT BABIES AND YOUNG CHILDREN ARE FULLY HUMAN BEINGS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT. We may not have much control over how children turn out, but we do have enormous power over their lives as children, and those lives are as valuable and important as adult lives. CHILDREN AREN’T JUST VALUABLE BECAUSE THEY WILL TURN INTO GROWN-UPS BUT BECAUSE THEY ARE THINKING, FEELING, INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE THEMSELVES. p.206-208
THE SCIENTIST IN THE CRIB BY ALISON GOPNIK - INTERACTIVE BOOK SUMMARY. Genius Baby-Brain & Sensory Development, Jan 7, 2024. 4:30
FOR YOUR OWN GOOD HIDDEN CRUELTY IN CHILD-REARING AND THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE BY ALICE MILLER (book free to download)
From Preface “Since the end of World War II, I have been haunted by the question of what could make a person conceive the plan of gassing millions of human beings to death and of how it could then be possible for millions of others to acclaim him and assist in carrying out this plan. The solution to this enigma, which I found only a short while ago, is what I have tried to present in this book.”
SHAME, GUILT & THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE by James Gilligan, March 17, 2018
“During the past 35 years I have used prisons and prison mental hospitals as "laboratories" in which to investigate the causes and prevention of the various forms of violence…. In the course of that work, I have been struck by the frequency with which I received the same answer when I asked prisoners, or mental patients, why they assaulted or even killed someone. Time after time, they would reply "because he disrespected me" or "he disrespected my visitor [or wife, mother, sister, girl-friend, daughter, etc.]."
I used to think that people committed armed robberies in order to get money; and indeed, that is the superficial explanation that they would often prefer to give, to themselves and to us. But when I actually sat down and spoke at length with men who had repeatedly committed such crimes, I would start to hear comments like "I never got so much respect before in my life as I did when I pointed a gun at some dude's face."
In the prisons and on the streets of the United States, such behavior appears to be committed by people who are so tormented by feelings of being shamed and disrespected by their enemies that they are willing to sacrifice their bodies and their physical existence to replace those intolerable feelings with the opposite feelings of pride and self-respect, and of being honored and admired by their allies and at least respected by their enemies.
Why would they regard rescuing or restoring their individual or collective self-esteem as more important than prolonging their biological lives? What many of these men have told me is that they themselves had died meaning that their personalities had died long before they began killing other people. What they mean by that is that they felt dead inside: empty, numb, without the capacity to feel anything, neither emotions (such as love, fear, or remorse) nor even physical sensations. Many described committing the most horrific atrocities in order to see if they could feel anything, and were surprised and disappointed to see that even that did not restore a capacity to have feelings and feel alive. And then they would be surprised to find that they could commit even the most terrible self-mutilations tearing out their toenails, blinding themselves, swallowing razor blades, inserting screws into their urethra ^without experiencing physical pain at the time. They would cut themselves because only when they saw blood could they be reassured that they were still alive. Many referred to themselves by one of the many synonyms for the living dead zombie, vampire, robot.
The "Death of the Self
If I call this the "death of the self," I am only paraphrasing what these men have told me. And they made it clear that they experienced the death of that fragile, vulnerable psychological construct, the self, as more tormenting than the death of the body could possibly be, with the implication that any act of violence by means of which they could attempt to resurrect their dead self, and bring it back to life to become "born again," so to speak, through an act of apocalyptic violence would be more than worth the sacrifice of their body.
What had caused the death of the self? The word that means overwhelming humiliation, namely, mortification, comes from Latin roots that mean "to make dead" {mortis, dead, and facere, to make) a psychological truth exemplified by the fact that one after another of the most violent men I have worked with over the years have described to me how they had been humiliated repeatedly throughout their childhoods, verbally, emotionally, and psychologically (taunted, teased, ridiculed, rejected, insulted). They had also been physically humiliated by means of violent physical abuse, sexual abuse, and life-threatening degrees of neglect (such as being starved by their parents, or simply and totally abandoned, as in coming home to find that their parents had absconded from the family's apartment, leaving them behind). And I am far from being alone in noticing this: Frazier (1974), Menninger (1969), and many other psychiatrists who have studied murderers have reported the repeated and overwhelming shame and humiliation in their childhood experiences.
DR. JAMES GILLIGAN - YOUTH AND VIOLENCE THE ROLE OF EDUCATION INSPIRING SOLUTIONS. Xenophrenia, Jan 8, 2012. 1:34:17 Dr. James Gilligan is on the faculty of New York University where he is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the School of Medicine, Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, and Collegiate Professor in the School of Arts and Science. For 30 years, Dr. Gilligan was on the faculty of the Department of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, where he directed the mental health and violence prevention services for the Massachusetts prison system. He has served as a consultant on violent crime and punishment, including war crimes, throughout the United States and around the world. Dr. Gillligan is the author of several works, including Violence: Reflections on a National Epidemic and Preventing Violence: Prospects for Tomorrow. In his writings, Dr Gilligan argues that overwhelming feelings of shame and humiliation lie at the root of both individual and collective violence; violence in its many forms thus becomes a desperate and risky attempt to gain respect and recognition.
MY HYPOTHESIS FOR A PEACEFUL WORLD THAT I GAVE TO AI CHATGPT:
I hypothesize that a child will grow to be a Voluntaryist—one who considers all governments as unnecessary evils and practices the two fundamental principles of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression—IF, using Erik Erikson’s 8 stage development model, the child is supported to Trust rather than Mistrust and to gain Autonomy rather than Doubt and Shame.
ERIK ERIKSON FIRST TWO STAGES:
I. TRUST VS MISTRUST
II. AUTONOMY VS DOUBT & SHAME
(See the AI generated outline below)
PSYCHIATRY REVIEW: ERIKSON'S EPIGENETIC MODEL OF DEVELOPMENT. Shrinks In Sneakers, March 28, 2018. 5:37
TRUST (n.)
c. 1200, "reliance on the veracity, integrity, or other virtues or sound principles of someone or something; religious faith," probably from Old Norse traust "help, confidence, protection, support," This is reconstructed to be from Proto-Germanic *treuwaz, source of Old English treowian "to believe, trust," and treowe "faithful, trusty" (from PIE root *deru- "be firm, solid, steadfast;" compare trow (v.), true (adj.)).
TRUSTING RELATIONSHIPS ARE CENTRAL TO CHILDREN'S LEARNING -- LESSONS FROM EDWARD TRONICK. Huffington Post, Ellen Galinsky Author, "Mind in the Making" Dec 6, 2017
It now may seem more obvious that trusting relationships enhance children's learning, but it wasn't obvious not so long ago when Tronick became interested in the subject. Tronick's goal has been to pursue how relationships affect children's development: ‘I [wanted] to understand what's going on in the exchange [between a parent and child] that allows a relationship to be "good" or "smooth." What do these words mean? Can we describe them, and can we come to an understanding of that process? Tronick began his studies with infants, using a new scientific procedure he developed called the Still-Face.”
TRONICK. FWIChannel, Dec 3, 2011. 3:55
TRUST VS. MISTRUST: PSYCHOSOCIAL STAGE 1 VeryWellMind By Kendra Cherry, MSEd July 12, 2024. The Most Crucial Stage of Childhood
The trust vs. mistrust stage is the first stage of psychologist Erik Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development. It begins at birth and lasts until a child is around 18 months to two years old.
According to Erikson, this is the most important period of a child's life, as it shapes their view of the world as well as their overall personality.
Overview
This first stage of psychosocial development consists of:
· Psychosocial Conflict: Trust vs. mistrust
· Major Question: "Can I trust the people around me?"
· Basic Virtue: Hope
· Important Event: Feeding
AUTONOMY (n.)
"autonomous condition, power or right of self-government," 1620s, of states, from Greek autonomia "independence," abstract noun from autonomos. "independent, living by one's own laws," from autos "self" (see auto-) + nomos "custom, law" (from PIE root *nem- "assign, allot; take").
AP PSYCHOLOGY - AUTONOMY VS. SHAME & DOUBT. Kyle G., Jan 22, 2018. 1:59
RESPECTING THE CONSENT AND AUTONOMY OF OUR CHILDREN. Meaningfulideas, July 27, 2023. 2:18
AUTONOMY VS. SHAME AND DOUBT IN PSYCHOSOCIAL STAGE 2. VeryWell Mind By Kendra Cherry, MSEd, February 07, 2025
How early experiences build (or undermine) self-reliance
Autonomy versus shame and doubt is the second stage of Erik Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development. This stage occurs between the age of 18 months and around age 2 or 3 years. According to Erikson, children at this stage are focused on developing a greater sense of self-control.
Erikson's theory of psychosocial development describes a series of eight stages that take place throughout the course of life. The first stage of development, trust vs. mistrust, is all about developing a sense of trust in the world.
This stage is all about children developing a greater sense of independence as they move through the world. Where the first stage focused on whether they could trust others, and the second stage focuses on whether they can trust themselves.
4.1 AUTONOMY AND SENSE OF SELF IN INFANTS AND TODDLERS
Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
· Describe the concepts of autonomy and sense of self
· Identify the early milestones of self-awareness and development of self
· Describe the beginnings of gender identity and the role of gender socialization in development
A DEEP DIVE INTO AUTONOMY VS DOUBT AND SHAME: ERIK ERIKSON Social Work Exam Strategies
Erik Erikson’s theory highlights the key role of the autonomy vs. shame and doubt stage in early childhood. This stage, from 18 months to 3 years, is crucial for a child’s sense of control and self-worth. It’s important for those supporting child growth to understand this stage and how to encourage healthy independence.
Key Takeaways
· The autonomy vs. doubt and shame stage is a crucial period in Erikson’s psychosocial development theory.
· During this stage, children start to show their will and explore, building a sense of control.
· Caregivers’ actions greatly influence a child’s sense of autonomy or feelings of shame and doubt, affecting their future.
· Encouraging healthy autonomy is key for self-esteem and readiness for later stages of development.
· Using strategies like consistent guidance, celebrating small achievements, and safe exploration can help in developing positive autonomy.
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF TRAUMA AT ANY AGE. PsychCentral
Understanding the overall impact of traumatic events at any age can help to identify areas of personal development that need to be addressed. Erik Eriksons Eight Stages of Psychosocial Development points out the positive and negative impact trauma can have on a persons life. This chart below serves as a summary of his theory. Here is some basic information to consider:
· Everyone passes through all the stages as they age. However, the success of one stage is not necessarily dependent on previous stages.
· The important events are guidelines only and not inclusive.
· The significant relations are generalities and can be different based on family structure.
· Each stage has the potential for achieving either a virtue or maladaptation. For instance, the virtue of Hope is formed when Trust overrides Mistrust. The maladaptation of Withdraw is formed when Mistrust overrides Trust.
· Trauma during any stage can cause a person to become stuck in that stage. And healing from a stage can occur any time after the stage is completed.
MY HYPOTHESIS FOR A PEACEFUL WORLD THAT I GAVE TO AI CHATGPT:
I hypothesize that a child will grow to be a Voluntaryist—one who considers all governments as unnecessary evils and practices the two fundamental principles of Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression—IF, using Erik Erikson’s 8 stage development model, the child is supported to Trust rather than Mistrust and to gain Autonomy rather than Doubt and Shame.
ERIK ERIKSON FIRST TWO STAGES:
I. TRUST VS MISTRUST
II. AUTONOMY VS DOUBT & SHAME
CHATGPT RESPONSE:
The Path to Voluntaryism Through Erikson’s Stages of Trust and Autonomy
I. Introduction
Erik Erikson’s psychosocial development theory provides a framework for understanding human growth and identity formation.
Voluntaryism, emphasizing Self-Ownership and Non-Aggression, posits that all government is an unnecessary evil.
Hypothesis: If a child develops Trust (vs. Mistrust) and Autonomy (vs. Shame and Doubt), they are more likely to adopt Voluntaryist principles later in life.
II. Erikson’s First Two Stages and Their Impact on Worldview
1. Trust vs. Mistrust (Infancy, 0-1.5 years)
Basic trust develops through responsive, consistent caregiving.
Long-term effects of trust: openness, confidence, belief in voluntary cooperation.
Failure to develop trust: fear, insecurity, preference for external control (e.g., reliance on authoritarian structures).
2. Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (Toddlerhood, 1.5-3 years)
Encouraging independence fosters self-reliance and decision-making.
Overcontrol or excessive criticism leads to dependence on external authority.
Connection to self-ownership: A child allowed autonomy will internalize personal responsibility.
III. The Psychological Basis of Voluntaryism
Self-Ownership and Autonomy: Eriksonian autonomy parallels Voluntaryist self-ownership.
Non-Aggression and Trust: Trusting children are more inclined to peaceful, voluntary cooperation rather than coercion.
The Alternative: Children raised with mistrust and shame are more likely to accept hierarchy and coercion.
IV. Supporting Evidence from Developmental Psychology
Attachment Theory (Bowlby & Ainsworth): Secure attachment aligns with trust-based worldviews.
Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan): Autonomy leads to intrinsic motivation and voluntary action.
Montessori & Free-Learning Models (Peter Gray, John Holt): Early autonomy correlates with self-directed, non-coercive learning.
V. Historical and Societal Perspectives
Lloyd deMause’s Evolutionary Childrearing Modes:
Societies with nurturing childrearing practices evolve toward freedom.
The shift from punitive to supportive parenting parallels the rise of individual rights.
Thomas Szasz on Mental Autonomy: State intervention undermines self-ownership.
Murray Rothbard on the State as Institutionalized Coercion: Individuals raised with autonomy are more resistant to government control.
VI. Practical Applications: How to Foster Voluntaryist Values in Childhood
Respecting a Child’s Self-Ownership: Allow choices within safe boundaries.
Encouraging Trust Through Secure Attachment: Responsive caregiving without coercion.
Fostering Non-Aggression in Parenting: Conflict resolution through communication rather than punishment.
Promoting Self-Directed Learning: Education models that emphasize choice and freedom.
VII. Conclusion
Reaffirming the hypothesis: Children raised with trust and autonomy are more likely to adopt Voluntaryist principles.
Call for more research into the intersection of developmental psychology and political philosophy.
References
Primary Sources: Erikson and Developmental Psychology
Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. W.W. Norton & Company.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. W.W. Norton & Company.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1: Attachment. Basic Books.
Ainsworth, M. D. (1978). Patterns of Attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Psychology Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer.
Psychology and Libertarian Thought
Szasz, T. (1961). The Myth of Mental Illness. Harper & Row.
Rothbard, M. (1982). The Ethics of Liberty. NYU Press.
Long, R. T. (2007). Liberty: The Other Equality. Social Philosophy & Policy, 24(2), 142-175.
Child Development and Education
Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason. Atria Books.
Gray, P. (2013). Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life. Basic Books.
Holt, J. (1974). Escape from Childhood: The Needs and Rights of Children. E.P. Dutton.
Historical and Evolutionary Childrearing
DeMause, L. (1982). Foundations of Psychohistory. Creative Roots.