At first sight, this question may seem absurd, however I would like this question to be scaled down to less intensity. I do not in any way state that I support this, however, out of curiosity this question arose. I do not want to compare this to a systemic suppression; I am opposed to that. I would like to reduce this to the scale of a common household where the suppression of freedom is minimal and only implemented to allow for excellence and an increase in potential. Please note that by suppression of freedom I mean to say that the actions of a certain individual in the family are regulated; certain actions are expected while certain others are prohibited. Specifically I aim to convey the following scenario/example: a father and mother have a 5 year old child. Although at times this child wishes to play, the parents "force" him to complete expected practices (such as music, or other skills they would like their child to take early on) and reward him with a limited amount of reinforcers (either it be games, candy,etc..) With hours of dedication and practice on the required work, the child will develop skills that will later prove quite useful. I have heard many others criticize such limiting behaviours from parents however, one may argue that children at such young ages lack the adequate wisdom to distinguish between what's best for and what is not. On the other hand, one may argue that at the stage of childhood, a child is supposed to have fun and enjoy his childhood, not be forced to do work.
The parents of a child have authority over their child, however, to what extent? Would such restriction of freedom be justified or condemned as being unjust?
References/quotes from philosophers would be appreciated.