In our previous free speech debate, I added this comment to the bottom of the post:
"It is hard for us to look at this question from a civil government perspective rather than a parent/child/siblings perspective. For instance, as a citizen I know that I don't want to limit free speech any more than absolutely necessary, but as a mother, I do not want my kids saying certain things, or using derogatory tones of voice, and I am willing to forbid it."
I asked a good friend to provide some comments for us to consider, and she obliged by email, reminding me that family government is not civil government and ought not to be so, that it is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
I tried to circumvent this problem in the beginning by letting the kids know all of this was theoretical, and they realized quickly that we are not a democracy, nor a constitutional republic:
"This election is theoretical only. Any Presidential position an inanimate object has in this house is purely ceremonial and imaginary."
"The kids realized rather quickly that our household form of government differs from the American form. We seem to be a constitutional monarchy with a very weak Parliament."
Nevertheless, our friend's points do cause me to wonder if we are trying too hard to learn about democracy through benevolent dictatorship. She said it was like trying to "understand ornithology using examples from horticulture."
It's a good question.
So I am going to consider her words and then regroup and decide what to do next.