Our philosophy comes from a natural extension of unschooling, in which we trust our child to learn what he needs when he needs it. He learned to crawl, walk, talk and so forth up to this day without us teaching him much of anything in any sort of commonly accepted or not school-ish way. We have complete trust in his ability to know what he wants and that those wants will change back and forth as he grows. Since we also view learning as life living, it only makes sense to not hinder his learning, by hindering his ability to live — so long as he’s not impeding on another’s ability to do so.

We planted poppy flower seeds in one of the flower beds outside at home. He decided to test this theory that stepping on the seedlings would really keep them from growing and would result in no flowers (or nothing to eat if it had been say, carrots, which he also loves). Well, he now knows that it’s true for sure, because we haven’t see a flower yet and he did quite a number on the poppy area. So, when it came time for the community garden and not stepping on the plots I expressed my concern that he could damage plants and cause them to not fruit and he related back, “just like my flowers”. If that’s not understanding for a preschooler, then I don’t know what is. No one had to tell him that it was wrong or NOT to do it. The natural consequence of having no poppy flowers was enough.

Another reason our philosophy resonates with me is that I too have done much research on child development and other areas (pregnancy, childbirth). Many of the studies are done with a starting point that children are born broken, bad, sort of ‘original sin’ kind of shit and that we, the parents and society have a duty to break them and bend them to our wills. I also have issues with placing my wellbeing and daily choices in the hands of, often times self appointed, experts — who we have been able to show in many areas are not correct or not completely correct. I completely disagree that children are empty vessels without much of anything going on in their heads. I also see no reason why my trust in pregnancy, birth and the natural order of life to stop once a child is born. Radical Unschooling is only a natural extension of that trust I have. I just also happen to be an Anarchist and believe in people as inherently good or capable of good — it’s society and often times parenting that ‘makes’ them bad. Idealistic in ways, sure, but isn’t every theory and don’t our children deserve to be given the benefit of doubt.

If your child is gifted, that’s great! Most kids are not, and so this type of parenting will not work for them. I’m merely pointing out the facts that something that works well for a child with superb mental abilities is well and good, but espousing these ideals as a good construct for those of us with only mildly smart children is a bad idea.

As i pointed out in a reply above^ on the other post. I think that as a parent who has done extensive research of childhood cognitive abilities, as well as developmental processes I would be much more comfortable if the notion of “rules” as being oppressive was worded differently, or some qualifier such as for *some* children.

All children are different, all children develop differently, and most children need the kind of reinforcement style of parenting we have been debating for their own health and well being, and it has nothing to do with Anarchist ideals, or societal norms. Those only exist outside of our homes - but the need for safe, happy children is something that should occur in every home in whatever way works best.

I am unaware of my son’s IQ, but he’s well above most children and plenty of adults that I’ve had the pleasure of meeting. I assume it’s because he’s always been treated like a real person with real feelings and had unhindered space and time to work shit out…Repetition hasn’t played as much a role as you seem to think.

I’m glad you stopped by, because you’ve caused me to think about somethings and given me time to hold firmer the ideas that we have and that we live by. We are doing alright and I hope you continue to do alright.

I think I might also be done with this exchange as it has appeared to me to have become a bit more of an attack than a conversation. What you are doing is working for you and I applaud that, I deserve some applause for shit working over here too.

We did the same thing, when we first had Punky. We too were vegans, and so didn’t have animal products in our home. When Punky got older, and was exposed to meat and animal based foods I allowed her the choice to eat it or not.

She ate it. And she liked it. Even though we didn’t. (I didn’t force her to, or not to, in either case - I didn’t see any need to do anything about it).

So, your son at the tender age of toddler hood could understand the concept of cause and effect with regards to the garden? I find that hard to believe, unless he is a certified genius of some sort (and he may well be). Or, was it more likely that not playing in the garden beds was an idea - or principle that you had to reinforce time and time again - you would explain it to him, and he would understand for a bit, then forget, as toddlers do. So you keep reminding him.

Either way, the “rule” is to not play in the garden - no matter how you enforce that rule, it is a rule none the less. I tell Punky that she can’t play in the garden, then explain why. It’s still a rule, and it still gets enforced.

As I’m sure it does where you are, too.

You keep stating that modeling principles will eliminate the need for rules - however those principles ARE rules - they are simply unspoken ones. That fact that it isn’t set up like a rule/punishment archetype doesn’t negate the fact that the expected behavior (principle) is, in fact, a rule.

He asks me to remind him about his teeth, because when he goes for a couple of days without brushing them, they get scumming feeling and he doesn’t like that, so to avoid that he wants me to remind him to brush so he doesn’t forget and then get that yucky feeling in his mouth. He also wants me to help, because HE says he doesn’t think he does a good job. I have explained that often times (especially if ‘bad’ teeth run in the family, which they do here) if we don’t brush our teeth can be broken down by bacteria and plaque and that it can seriously hurt us. His teeth are fine for now and hopefully his good, not excellent oral hygiene will continue. There are natural consequences of not brushing teeth and E’s been told about these and will be reminded when necessary.

E also knows not to walk in the raised beds at our community garden and in our yard…because if he did so, then we wouldn’t have food. I haven’t told him NOT to, but he understands that if he does, then it will effect him and everyone. He’s chosen to be respectful and not harm our food supply.

I think principles and actually explaining things to children can eliminate the NEED for rules.

You allow your child the freedom of choice, free of any outstanding rules, but you do so within the confines or boundaries that you have predetermined for your child. IE: you allow your child to choose what to eat, but since you don’t buy junk food, the only choices he can make are those which are healthy for him. (Or, initially anyway, you may or may not allow junk food into your home now). Ultimately you have forbidden him the foods that are unhealthy for him by eliminating junk food in the first place, because you, the adult, understand that junk food is not in your child’s best health interest (or yours, for that matter).

To me, what you’ve done is stacked the deck in your child’s favor, so that he has free reign to make choices, but none of the choices provided will actually cause any harm. Not only is that an excellent parenting technique - but it is far *more* restrictive than what the average family does on a regular basis. (The average family allowing their child access to junk food on a regular basis).

That said, it does not prove in any way shape or form that a child knows better than a parent. In fact, it shows that you - the parent - are not only wiser to the ways of what is and isn’t beneficial, but more clever to boot.

There is a question however, as to just how permissive a parent should be with their child at different stages of their life. Lets say hypothetically, your son is 10, his taste buds have changed, and he has a new friend he plays with who likes junk food. He has now not only been exposed to junk food, but has developed a taste for it. Now, all he wants is junk food. (This happens, seriously). As a parent, will you allow him to gorge himself on junk food only, if that is what he wants?

Teeth present another question. You stated that they are his teeth, therefore you don’t enforce the rule of brushing them. You do, however, remind him to do so (because you know what will happen if he doesn’t). If he refused, and stopped brushing them altogether, would you allow it to happen, full well knowing that tooth decay (and eventually more serious problems) is not only painful, but will affect his ability to eat, drink, and sleep, which will negatively affect his health?

You say your son knows that the stove is hot - so does Punky (my kid) however, at a young age simply telling a child that something is “hot” doesn’t actually tell them much. You have to explain to them what that means, which typically includes a “don’t touch it” warning. Even then, young kids can’t make the correlation between “hot stove” and “painful burn” - not even if they learn it by experience. (Young children do not posses the mental comprehension of cause and effect until they older). How often did you allow your son to play with or near a hot stove without your supervision, until he actually made the connection? (Again, creating boundaries with supervision).

As an adult you and I know things about this world that a toddler, or young adolescent does not know. Even teen agers don’t posses the same kinds of knowledge that an adult possesses. It is our job to pass along that knowledge in a variety of ways so that they may learn about it, safe from harm. Sometimes that means implementing rules that may seem mean, and arbitrary to the kid. Such as allowing a 10 year old to wander about at night, unsupervised. To a fairly responsible 10 year old, going out on their own, at night seems perfectly reasonable. As a parent, and adult who knows the local well we know that at night, there are folks out there with less than ethical intentions - and it becomes a dangerous place that no child should experience. Drunks getting out of bars, and driving - perverts, kidnappers, etc…They all pose a risk that even a responsible child has not control over, and has little comprehension of.

But we do. And that’s our job.

I was thinking of a few rules that we have to implement here, because as adults w e know that the rules are there to benefit all of us. The veggie garden is a no play zone. Half of the year Punky has free reign of the yard, but come spring time, we plant food to help sustain our family throughout the year. Playing(unsupervised, I should say, Punky is more than welcome to help garden) in the garden would cause harm to all of us, because it would damage the plants that produce food that we need to eat. Punky doesn’t understand that yet, Punky is too young.

Punky is not allowed to run in the road. Or play with items that if broken or damaged would cause her harm, or otherwise cost the family in away we can’t afford.

Again, rules are not oppressive. And children really, honestly, do not know what is best for them more so than an adult will. All of the great choices your son makes on a regular basis are made because at some point, you taught him how to - because you had to instill the knowledge that you posses in order for him to learn how to make good choices. And you will continue doing that, until he’s all grown up….

We can back from a birthday part for six kids (mostly Anarchists) today and there was a cake for each of them…funny that 90 percent of the cake eaten was eaten by all the adults there and not the kids who were having too good of a time to gorge on cake.

We didn’t really baby proof our house…E’s never asked to wander the streets at night, but he is only 5…E’s really good at judging what he’s ok watching and will leave the room if what’s on TV bothers him…He rather enjoys baths, because they’ve never been forced on him…I don’t make him brush his teeth, because they are HIS teeth, but he does have me remind him to do it and then asks me to help…

From a very small age E has known that the stove is hot and has been invited into the kitchen to help cook and use knives…we would not have Windex in our house and once again, E knows that the things under the sink are for cleaning and uses them properly. I don’t know, I might ‘let’ my 10 year old out unsupervised at night — I guess it might depend on the situation in context…

Put a glass of soda and a bag of chips in front of a typical child, and a glass of water and an apple in front of that child, and let him or her decide what to eat.

How much you wanna bet they’ll choose the snack that tastes good, but isn’t healthy?

My point is, no, children do not always know what is best for them. That’s why we baby proof our homes. That’s why we don’t let them wander about the streets at night. that’s why we don’t let them watch violent TV, and make them brush their teeth when they don’t wanna, and make them east healthy foods, and get rest and take baths.

there is something to be said for being a parent - some 30 years older than a little child, and actually knowing a bit more about the world, health, and safety than a two year old, a five year old, and even a twelve year old.

Children are smart, they are not wise.

Giving your child the room to make their own choices is a great parenting technique, but assuming they actually know what is best for the is dangerous. I highly doubt you’d allow a toddler to play with a hot stove, or a bottle of windex, or allow a ten year old to go out, at night, unsupervised.