I don't understand this "as a libertarian" stuff. The way you use it suggests that we should know exactly what you mean when you say it, and what the content of your beliefs are, but it doesn't do any of that.
Libertarianism as a normative principle around which a discussion is based is generally unhelpful (even moreso than "democrat" or "republican") because it is not self-defining. Who defines which rights are intrinsic to people, eh? Well, you do of course (at least most libertarians I've met like to define their own rights - the only role for the government is as "nightwatchman".) Even if you try to rely on some natural rights theory, or rights vested in a document you still define your rights for yourself (life, liberty, property - well, I'm pretty sure property isn't limited to real property, but how big is that class and what does it contain?). You can look in the bible, the constitution, wherever you want, there is no comprehensive list of rights anywhere, only vague "areas" of liberty. W/o government to define the content of those rights, we're left w/ self-serving personal whim (which of course is rational, but not necessarily beneficial in a society of people each w/ different goals). So, my rights are limited by your conception of your rights, and yours are limited by my personal conception of my rights. A dialogue b/w these two people would be fruitless b/c there's really no meta-principle that bridges the two conceptions. That's why we HAVE a government - in order to provide content to these areas of liberty - and importantly, a government based on the consent of the governed. Libertarian principles are important in a free society, but they cannot be the entire basis of that society.
Too make a bland assertion that "I have more rights to do with my child what I choose than does the government" cannot be termed truly libertarian, as John Stuart Mill would have used it, b/c it is completely insensitive to the rights of another person, herself being possessed of rights, and it is also unhelpful - its almost a non-sequitur. True libertarianism is sorely concerned w/ protecting not only your personal rights, but also the rights of others. Children are not chattle. No right is absolute, not even in a libertarian conception. Furthermore, of course you have more rights than the government - the government has no right to custody of your child w/o legal process, for example, but that says nothing about your rights vis-a-vis beating your child. Lastly, the view of libertarianism most frequently encountered, that of individual rights only, is way too cramped. There is room in classical libertarian thought for societal rights - as opposed to a government vs. the individual concept.
As I always suggest to people who claim to be libertarian, you should read "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill b/4 you adopt the moniker "Libertarian." Also, you might want to pick up and read anything of the Critical Legal Studies movement's treatment of libertarianism. It might open your eyes as to the usefulness of that philosphy in a working society.
As an aside, I find most people who call themselves libertarian are really western Republicans. That's not pejorative, just an observation.
You can fly?!?
No. Jump good.
You can fly?!?
No. Jump good.