The Sovereign Child Audiolibro Por Aaron Stupple, Logan Chipkin arte de portada

The Sovereign Child

How a Forgotten Philosophy Can Liberate Kids and Their Parents

 Vista previa
Prueba por $0.00
Prime logotipo Exclusivo para miembros Prime: ¿Nuevo en Audible? Obtén 2 audiolibros gratis con tu prueba.
Elige 1 audiolibro al mes de nuestra inigualable colección.
Escucha todo lo que quieras de entre miles de audiolibros, Originals y podcasts incluidos.
Accede a ofertas y descuentos exclusivos.
Premium Plus se renueva automáticamente por $14.95 al mes después de 30 días. Cancela en cualquier momento.

The Sovereign Child

De: Aaron Stupple, Logan Chipkin
Narrado por: Aaron Stupple
Prueba por $0.00

$14.95 al mes después de 30 días. Cancela en cualquier momento.

Compra ahora por $19.95

Compra ahora por $19.95

Confirma la compra
la tarjeta con terminación
Cambiar método de pago
Al confirmar tu compra, aceptas las Condiciones de Uso de Audible y el Aviso de Privacidad de Amazon. Impuestos a cobrar según aplique.
Cancelar

Acerca de esta escucha

Could it really be okay to let kids eat whatever they want? Sleep whenever they want? Watch whatever they want? If kids are completely free to make their own choices, they’ll develop damaging habits that will haunt them into adulthood. Surely parents have a duty to set a few limits.

But what if this conventional wisdom is wrong? What if our deepest ideas of how learning works, how knowledge grows, and the nature of personhood all point to the brute fact that parenting philosophies have missed a critical detail?

In The Sovereign Child, Aaron Stupple explains Taking Children Seriously, the only parenting philosophy that accounts for the fact that children are people—their reasons, desires, emotions, and creativity all work precisely the same way that those of adults do. Because of this, much of the conventional wisdom simply cannot work as intended.

Using examples gleaned from his years as a father of five, Aaron takes a close look at the unavoidable harms of rule enforcement and the startling alternatives available when parents never give up on treating children as if their reasons for their choices matter as much as anyone else's.

©2025 Aaron Stupple (P)2025 Aaron Stupple Crianza y Familias Desarrollo Personal Relaciones
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_T1_webcro805_stickypopup
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante  
I had high hopes for this book because I think David Deutsch’s work is life-changing. I approached The Sovereign Child with curiosity and goodwill. There’s plenty to appreciate in its critique of modern parenting. I agree entirely that helicopter parenting and when parents impose their “infinite wisdom” by fiat and override their children’s curiosity - breeds dependants rather than independent thinkers. Children need space to explore and fail, to test their boundaries and engage with the real world directly. Our role as parents is to reveal natural consequences through experience, not to impose rules by fiat. The parent’s role is not to be a dictator but a narrator: to explain, contextualize, and only step in when the stakes demand it. In this light, boundaries should be rare, intentional, and explained - not arbitrary or self-serving.

I also agree with the book’s premise that society is utterly unprepared for self-sovereign children. Schools, in particular, often function like prisons: rigid, surveillance-heavy environments that crush creativity and condition obedience. They stifle innovation and independence, shaping kids into obedient little servants rather than autonomous individuals. I like the idea of collaborative problem-solving instead of fixed rules of thumb: children need to learn how to navigate complexity, not memorize shortcuts.

Children are craving explanations like sponges. They want to know how the world works, what makes people tick, and what matters. But the book, for all its talk of taking children seriously, too often leaves them on their own - hoping they’ll arrive at adult realizations without guidance. Letting a child drift alone in the name of autonomy isn’t taking them seriously - it’s refusing to do the harder work of helping them think things through.

After the initial points of agreement, the book begins to fall apart. What I expected to be a coherent, deep exploration of parenting philosophy ends up feeling ad hoc, shallow, and often contradictory. Unlike the intellectual rigor of David Deutsch’s work - where ideas are explored, challenged, and refined - this book jumps mental models without resolution. It starts by rebelling against the image of children as slaves, only to reassign the shackles to the parents. Suddenly, it is the adults who are not allowed to say no, not allowed to opt out, because heaven forbid the child might momentarily not be having fun.
If the parent’s role is reduced to a passive enabler of momentary joy, where does that leave the adult’s joy? The phrase “I decided to bite the bullet” comes up repeatedly - implicitly framing the parent as a joyless martyr. Where’s the mutual respect in that? A relationship where one side holds all the opt-out power is not respect, it’s not equality - it’s a reversed hierarchy with a moral shield. Respecting children as developing individuals doesn’t mean treating their impulses as equal to adult judgment. It means helping them grow the tools to eventually stand as equals, not pretending they already do.

The book even claims, absurdly, that “kids’ ideas are just as valid as adults’.” But ideas aren’t equal just because people are. A child’s suggestion to eat ice cream and chocolate for every meal (actually what they allow) isn’t as valid as an adult’s understanding of nutrition. Pretending otherwise isn’t empowerment - it’s a refusal to help children refine and test their thinking.

Worse, this approach teaches children immediate gratification. If they’re never expected to clean the cup they dirtied or put away the toys they played with - because it would take the parent less time - then they’re being trained for a world that doesn’t exist. They’re learning that unpleasant tasks always fall to someone else, and that reality should adjust to their moods. That’s not sovereignty; that’s a false map of the territory.

There’s a strong line between allowing kids to eat something we adults wouldn’t choose ourselves, and actually providing infinite junk food while pretending it’s freedom. At some point it stops being autonomy and starts looking like avoiding responsibility for poisoning them. These are the same children who, as adults, will rightfully accuse their parents of shifting the blame onto their simple minds - you let me eat nothing but sugar; you let me make choices I couldn’t possibly understand. That’s not respect - that’s cowardice dressed as liberation.

The idea that a child should always be allowed to do what brings momentary fun sounds liberating, but it creates a distorted worldview. The book seems to suggest that the parent’s responsibility is to absorb all inconvenience so the child never misses a chance at joy. But where does that leave the parent? This isn’t a partnership - it’s a one-sided service contract dressed up as philosophy.

The claim that “there are no rules” is, of course, a hyperbole that collapses under its own weight. No one in their right mind would let a toddler play with sharp knives just because they’d let an adult do it. There are always rules - we just pretend they don’t exist when we want to avoid responsibility for enforcing them. If the author truly applied the same standards to dangerous or irreversible situations, the philosophy would unravel. E.g. hat kind of parent would let a child undergo life-altering gender surgery just because they like playing with dolls. The latter is fine, the former is where we should draw the line.

In summary, the book makes some valuable critiques of mainstream parenting but fails to offer a robust or realistic alternative. It seems more like a manifesto of wishful thinking than a philosophy grounded in how children - and humans - actually grow. A child taken seriously still needs guidance. A parent who’s always biting the bullet is just being chewed up by a theory that doesn’t know when to say no.

When Respect Becomes Abdication

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.