If we're talking about kids -- actual kids, not 17-18 quasi-kids -- numerous studies have shown that too much freedom really is a bad thing. They want structure and safety.
I'm skeptical about these studies. I haven't read the primary literature, but the popularized versions I've read in magazines usually blur the crucial distinction between being an authority and acting authoritarian. You can decide how authoritarian to behave. But whether you're an authority or not is something your children decide -- like it or not -- and you have little direct influence on it except being a good role model. What gives children structure and safety is that they can look up to their parents as authorities. Whether they are also authoritarians or not doesn't make a difference either way.
For example, I'm an anti-authoritarian authority to my nephews and nieces. I never order them around, but when I ask them not to do something, they almost never do it. (Knock on wood -- and this might fail to work with my yet-to-be-conceived children.) On the other hand, I'd predict that if you rewind your life to the age of 10 and rerun your childhood, this time with your parents spanking you more, the picture doesn't get any better. By contrast, I'd predict the picture does get better if you rerun your childhood with parents who are better role models. Am I making any sense here? Not sure.
The point I tried to make in my last post was that I have every reason to believe the Sozlet respects you as an authority. As a result of that, I expect you will find it very hard to screw things up by choosing the wrong level of authoritarianism -- even if you tried. You may be a bit more of an authoritarian than I am, but I believe most pedagogics books overhype the difference this would make in practice -- either way.
-- Thomas, childless armchair professor of theoretical pedagogics, who just loves
to lecture experts