As I suspect, it always comes back to baptism, infant baptism in particular.

Kahn: “Liberalism has never produced an adequate explanation of the family, because we cannot understand children” without the framing assumptions of liberalism – its assumption that the individual is the primary unit of explanation and its division between public and private. Liberalism “cannot settle whether the state should protect the child from the coercive influences of his or her family, or whether the private family should be protected from the state.” In short, “every individual effort turned toward a public project . . . is a puzzle for liberalism.”

Baptizing infants poses a deep challenge to liberal order: It rejects the notion that the individual child is a self-standing individual, and by placing the child within the church, a public institution with a political history, it disrupts easy public/private divide. By contrast, believer’s baptism looks to be an accommodation to liberal order (though, more precisely, it may be at the roots of liberal order).

via Peter J. Leithart » Blog Archive » Theology of the child.

True.

And the child under his parents is a refutation of the general prinicple that voluntary transactions always mutually benefit both parties to the exchange. Parents know that they can’t allow their young children to interact freely with merchants. That would be exploitation. They want the right and power to monitor and intervene in voluntary transactions.

But, conversely, people are supposed to grow up. They are not supposed to remain children forever. In fact, remaining a child is slavery. People resent being treated like children, being told that virtue lies in remains dependent (and putting an “inter-” prefix on the word does nothing to sweeten the alleged medicine). They want to have children of their own and (if they have any integrity at all) resent the state’s institutionalize encroachments on their families.

So, for all its faults, I think “liberalism” was a needed upraised fist against the powers. Where things should settle is worth discussing. But I don’t think “liberalism” should be blamed for all the faults of its philosophers.

In my opinion, those philosophers came late in the social movement and were explaining what was already happening rather than causing any of it. Philosophers and theologians always rush to lead every parade, and they all started long before they arrived with their batons.

So I’m happy to make paedobaptism a foundational aspect of social theorizing. But I think it will bolster liberty:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slavenor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.