I don’t see how one can answer “correctly” a question about an individual who doesn’t exist and a situation that doesn’t exist. And if the individual and the situation did exist, I would still be a bit confused by the question.
How does a plumber raise children? How does a lover of music raise children? Hell, I don’t know. I suppose if I defined myself as a plumber and nothing else, it would be however the plumbing authority told me to raise my children.
How does an anarchist bring up his own children? How does he justify imposing rules and limits on them for their own safety? Would you make your seven year old child wear a helmet on their bicycle? Would you let them play soccer next to a busy road? Use a deep fat fryer? etc.
By the rules of the authoritative code of anarchy they wish to go by. Once again, that is how an anarchist would raise children. There are different forms of rules and principles under different definitions of anarchy, so it depends on which one you would chose I guess; pick your authority and follow it.
Of course if you are wondering what methods could be useful or would be most likely useful to raise a child using concepts derived from anarchy as a possible positive force in favor of the development of a child, that’s a bit of a different answer.
I usually use physical punishments for physical transgressions: hitting, breaking things in anger, screaming at his baby sister, and other NAP violations. It’s more embarrassing for him than painful as I hit him a lot harder in our sparring sessions. I rarely have to punish him though, as he’s a pretty good kid and I have few rules beyond observing the NAP. When he breaks the rules it’s often due to being frustrated with whatever he’s doing at the time (playing video games can be a big agitator), but that’s no excuse for an NAP violation in my house. I forget how old he was when I started physical punishments, but it was around the point that I thought he was a conscious actor knowingly violating the NAP and not just a baby reacting to stimuli with no sense of wrongdoing. I’m satisfied with the results of the approach, as he is learning to restrain himself more and more, and is toughening up considerably (he was something of a crybaby). My daughter will certainly receive the same treatment, though I’m hoping she’ll have a less aggressive nature
I think the whole issue of family, in general, invalidates egoism and individualist anarchism. Humans are familial beings. We exist, produce and reproduce in the family context. Each of us began our lives in a state of semi-property/semi-slavery.
Hoppe uses the analogy (actually, it may not be an analogy, he may be literal, I’m not sure) of trusteeship. I think it’s a fairly good analogy but I think there is a lot more to the issue. Basically, parents are trustees of the child’s rights. Until the child reaches majority, he does not have adult rights because his parents are holding them in trusteeship.
However, it is not at all accurate to say that children have no rights. They certainly do have rights and those rights come from extended family. While parents clearly have the highest claim on the disposition of a child, they do not have absolutely exclusive claim.
When a child is born, it is in need of care - food, water, clothing, shelter, nurturing, etc. An orphaned or abandoned child may be cared for by anyone who wishes to care for the child (I am assuming a natural order). No one may rightfully prohibit another person from caring for an orphaned or abandoned child. But parents do have a right to refuse unwanted care for their children provided they give the care themselves. A parent can refuse the unwanted interference of a grandparent, uncle or aunt in the care and rearing of his or her child. However, if the parent refuses to care for the child, he or she has repudiated the right to refuse others from caring for the child. The right of refusal should be ordered by next of kin - a parent may refuse care from a grandparent, a grandparent can refuse care from an aunt, and so on. If both parents refuse to care for a child then the grandparents have the highest claim to the care of the child which the parents may no longer refuse by virtue of their repudiation of the child’s welfare.
This extends not only to refusal of positive care but to intervention to prevent abuse. By abusing a child, a parent is repudiating the child’s welfare and, therefore, loses the right to refuse intervention by the next of kin. The point at which the child may advocate for its own welfare will be subject to social norms. I don’t think there’s any divine libertarian revelation which tells us when a child may begin advocating for itself.
Strangers, such as government bureaucrats, figure nowhere in a natural order. The relatively rare cases of total family abandonment or orphaning will be handled through adoption, charity or child employment.