At least 99% of parents can't be trusted with the ability to hit their kids.
It may seem this implies they can't be trusted with kids at all. Probably.
Fundamental trust aside; can do privileges instead. Have a weekly car ride. Heck, have a weekly on-your-back ride for a couple hours. Then take it away if they insist on treachery.
The ongoing effort from the parent is key to a proper privilege. It doesn't count as a privilege if there's a higher cost for interrupting it than continuing it, such as video game [privileges]. Easier not to steal the power cord than to let it stay.
If parents can hit their kids, parents will use it for exploitation. Negative reinforcement allows extortion, blackmail, etc.
This should be against their interests, but they're horrible (i.e. sapiens) so it isn't.
You can tell they're horrible because they shouldn't need encouragement from pseudonymous text boxes on the internet to give [privileges] in this sense to their kids. Why aren't you already showering your kids with nice nonmonetary luxuries, for the sake of being nice? Why have I literally never witnessed this even a single time?
All this virtue-signalling online to avoid virtue-signalling at home. To the alleged loved ones.
Don't forget commoners only recognize mandatory and forbidden. If commoners can extort their kids, then they think they have to. Options are too rich for their blood. That is: there's a backstop. In the extraordinary case of a virtuous commoner, they will still act viciously to their kids if it is permitted.
Note that the 1% or less direspect rules because they can. At best they re-write the rules for their own convenience. Soycial design doesn't apply to them, regardless of system.
By revoking a positive rather than applying a negative, it's the parents as well as the kids who receive discipline. If I demand something absurd from my kids, they will sacrifice the privilege to get out of it. "Clean your sister's room or no more piggy backs." "Oh, well, never mind on the rides then."
A lot of the reason for [parental discipline] is merely that words are hard. Parents are inarticulate. Need a way for the children to understand the instruction. The intensity of the punishment is irrelevant, merely that it's an embodied punishment, rather than a reward. That and the fact moms say things for the sake of saying things all the time, so [consequences] are necessary to tell when she's not merely spewing bullshit from her face-butt.
Parents being non-verbal means they can't hear their kids either. They can't tell how much the demands are burdening the children. Using privileges, they can find out. What is the greatest privilege the kid will give up to get out of the command? Imagine demanding they finish their dinner. Will they give up decorative door ribbons? They would probably give that up for a nickel. If they're giving up daily trips to the video game museum to avoid having to finish dinner, then it turns out the parent is asking far more than they realized. "Yeah, uh, your cooking is literal torture dude." Commoners are retarded. Without being smacked in the face like this, they will never figure it out. I model them as constitutionally incapable of love (storge or otherwise).
Note that hunter tribes don't hit their children. (But do hit their wives.) Hitting someone 1/4 your weight is bullying, regardless of the reason. Cowardly and treacherous; shameful twice over. Your soyvilization should at least be as civilized as pre-agricultural societies. China is less civilized, more soyvilized, than guys who think a pointy rock is the height of ingenuity and eat off baked dirt.
All the popular talk about rights and privileges doesn't apply to governments. It should, however, apply to families. Dinner is a right. Mcdonald's is a privilege. Make the latter non-arbitrary so it can be used as enforcement.
P.S. You need a father, entry #36896: moms don't comprehend systems. Is she saying no to mcds because you pissed her off or because you were bad? No, she's just bummed about the weather and in a [no] mood, and she wouldn't tell you even if she had a good reason and knew what it was.
If she did say when she had a good reason, not saying would reveal all the times she has no good reason.
A common woman especially takes her feelings as gospel, and the result is incomprehensible to her let alone to anyone else. That is; babies cry to replace mom's emotions with their own, and if you're not replacing her emotions, she's inherently abusive. Women are non-sapient that this emotion-replacement trigger can go off reliably. I wouldn't have done it that way, but it's not my evolution, not my karma, and not my decision.