I see that the UK government is again vacillating absurdly on the topic of corporal punishment. Apparently Brown and co. are happy for children to be beaten by their parents. As the father of two teenagers, I can well appreciate this problem: sometimes I think beating children should be not so much permissible as compulsory.
But the paradox for supporters of violence against children remains obvious: one day our offspring are so threatening and so inured to reason that only physical violence will stop them running amok, and the next day they can vote. It is hardly a sensible state of affairs.
So what should we do about it? The answer seems obvious: stop limiting the people we can beat to children. If any reasonable person (e.g., the person who wants to beat them) would conclude that someone who is too weak and vulnerable to resist deserved a good beating, let them have it!
Of course, these things need to introduced progressively. So let us, say, raise the age at which a child may be beaten to 30. Individuals who are able to defend themselves may require special treatment – e.g., manacles, gang assaults, and so on – but I am sure that the police (or perhaps S+M club – just enquire at your local Conservative Association) would be happy to assist here.
Then we could restore the much neglected right of a man to physically chastise his wife (perhaps with a taser). Then once that has been restored, the right of employers to beat their employees should likewise be reaffirmed.
And then people with exactly zero moral status and no mandate whatsoever should be allowed to invade countries on the far side of the world that even their own intelligence agencies tell them have no connection with the problem they are allegedly trying to solve, bring about the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and still get re-elected.