Blackstone grounded parental chastisement power in the duty to educate, not ownership
Evidence
Three things about Blackstone’s account deserve attention. First, parental authority — including the authority to correct physically — is legally grounded in the parent’s duty to educate, not in the parent’s independent entitlement over the child’s body. Blackstone is not claiming that parents own children. He is claiming that the obligation to educate generates the authority to enforce it. The chastisement power is derivative: it exists because it is necessary for the performance of a parental duty. — , The Rod and the Child, 7760
Categorization
- DEFINE: Clarifies the legal basis of the common-law chastisement power as derivative of educational duty rather than proprietary right.
- XREF: connects to: School corporal punishment abolition in Britain stemmed from parental rights, not children’s rights holdings — , The Rod and the Child: A Global History…, 9243
Related
- School corporal punishment abolition in Britain stemmed from parental rights, not children’s rights holdings (similarity 0.86)
- Parents’ anti-corporal-punishment views qualified as protected philosophical convictions under the ECHR (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- School corporal punishment abolition in Britain stemmed from parental rights, not children’s rights holdings
#corroborates(0.55) — , The Rod and the Child, 9243