That's a hard one.
The right to discipline children depends on HOW you discipline them. Back then, you could beat up children and not get in trouble. Now that's not the case and that's a good thing but it does COME with a huge cost - sincere parents who spank them could be accused of abuse.
I can't ever remember a time when beating a child was acceptable, and I have lived quite a bit longer than most on this forum.
Really, it's HARD to define freedom. Do you think it's a freedom to smoke when you are actually NOT free from smoking, you're ADDICTED to it. Is addiction a freedom? Are you truly free if you are being controlled by something?
Because addiction involves the self, personal choices that lead to that addiction fall within the realm of personal right. Especially when discussing a legal activity such as smoking.
Or children being spanked, shouldn't children be free from physical harm? Just how much harm is unacceptable? How far would we go to say that children must be free from mental harm... say, like a teen feeling like she's being harmed because her parent doesn't allow her to date... oh wait, exactly what age should a person be allowed to have freedom? What about the freedom of believing in a different religion when your parents would NOT allow that?
The law would define that as the age of majority. That is why children are known as "minors,"
Even philosophers debate on what is considered freedom.
But I think we do have more freedom than ever though.