 |
| |
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Ozzie:
So at what age should a person be allowed to:
(1)Vote?
(2)Drink?
(3)Drive?
(4)Hold a job?
(5)Enter into a contract?
What criteria did you use to make your decision? |
Ok, I'll bite and go out on a limb here. How about we move past age as a criteria altogether? Everyone here seems to recognize it is merely a substitute for other criteria. Age is insignificant, it is merely used as a stand-in for other qualities. Why don't we use those qualities as the criteria? Why do we need to use an abstraction, when all it does is lead to irrational, and unfair treatment of individuals?
(1)Vote?
There are a few options for voting, I'll raise two possabilities. First, and easiest to wrap your brain around, since the voting age is an abstract measure of a person's competency, why don't we just have competency tests and throw out the middle man? Maybe have a civics test, or whatever kind of test you like to test the real qualities we want to see in a voter. I wouldn't have a problem with this.
However this gets into trouble because the Supreme Court has already ruled that such tests are illegal for adults. The court said the right to vote is supreme, and even stupid people, even illiterate people, and in most cases even mentally retarded people have a RIGHT to vote. How can you logically support the right of stupid adults to vote, but deny intelligent and competent youth the right to vote? Since age is a substite standard for competency/intelligence/experience/etc, don't you find some inconsistencies in the fact that competency/intelligence/experience/etc has been ruled to be NO BASIS for the right to vote?
So let me throw out another option(out of many others), how about no voting age at all? Germany may be moving in that direction, and legislation has been introduced to abolish the voting age altogether. Now I'm not saying this is the best option, I'm talking it out for your benefit, so before you get all hysterical, please think how this would work. I doubt the vast majority of children would even want to vote, so what would be harmed by allowing them? Massive amounts of 6 year olds would NOT be showing up at the polls and swinging elections. It is entirely likely that .01% of eligible 6 year olds would be interested/able to register to vote and vote. BUT if .01% of 6 year olds ARE interested and ARE able to register and vote, why on earth would you stop them? What are you really afraid of?
As you would get older, you'd definitely see more able voters, and people more interested in voting. Voting is a self-selecting system, those people who are informed about politics are the ones who will make the effort to go out and vote, those who couldn't care less and who would be voting ignorantly, wouldn't bother registering and then voting. No one is forced to vote.
(2)Drink?
In many countries there either isn't a drinking age, or the one on the books exists merely on paper. The drinking age in the United States has existed for a little over 100 years. In Portugaul where there is no drinking age, how often do we see toddler keg parties? Never. In fact in countries with lower drinking ages and lower enforcement of drinking ages we see *less drinking* and moreover less problems with alcohol. During prohibition in America drinking among adults INCREASED, it is no surprize to see such high level of drinking among American youth as compared to their European counterparts. The drinking age only causes problems.
(3)Drive?
Once again, a driving age is a substitute for real criteria involving a person's ability to drive a car. We already have tests for a person's ability to drive a car, a driving age is redundant. Lets suppose the vast majority of 6 year olds are unable to drive safely and competantly. Well fine, they don't drive. That simple. If .01% of 6 year olds could pass a strict (and yes, they'd have to be much stricter than they are today) driving test, why wouldn't you want to let them drive?
(4)Hold a job?
I've been gainfully employed since 9. It has only done positive things for me. Why impose a limit? As I noted in my other post, forcing someone to work against their will is slavery and against the law. If someone very young chooses to work, then they should be able to. Of course it depends on the employer and the job. If a job requires heavy lifting and the child is physically unable to do the lifting, of course he/she couldn't do the job. If it requires advanced knowledge of math, and the applicant doesn't have it, they shouldn't get the job. Young people currently do farm work, do work at home, deliver newspapers (as I did), babysit, volunteer, and do many other productive jobs. How is this any different from hawking designer jeans? Or whatever other jobs might be open to someone young.
Everyone irrationally fears a return to the unsafe, dangerous working conditions for child workers 100 years ago. News flash: unsafe, dangerous working conditions of the type that existed then are already outlawed.
(5)Enter into a contract?
We want to make sure someone signing a contract understands exactly what they are getting themselves into and the implications of it. Why can't we just make sure of that? You don't need an age restriction for that. It would help out people of all ages. Look at Terrell Owens, who signed a contract and I suppose didn't fully understand what it entailed as he missed out on his free agency because of dumbly missing a filing date. If a greater effort were made to ensure those who sign contracts actually read and understood what was involved in it, then I see no need for an age requirement.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
(1)Vote?
There are a few options for voting, I'll raise two possabilities. First, and easiest to wrap your brain around, since the voting age is an abstract measure of a person's competency, why don't we just have competency tests and throw out the middle man? Maybe have a civics test, or whatever kind of test you like to test the real qualities we want to see in a voter. I wouldn't have a problem with this.
However this gets into trouble because the Supreme Court has already ruled that such tests are illegal for adults. The court said the right to vote is supreme, and even stupid people, even illiterate people, and in most cases even mentally retarded people have a RIGHT to vote. How can you logically support the right of stupid adults to vote, but deny intelligent and competent youth the right to vote? Since age is a substite standard for competency/intelligence/experience/etc, don't you find some inconsistencies in the fact that competency/intelligence/experience/etc has been ruled to be NO BASIS for the right to vote? |
Actually, it's because there is a constitutional amendment banning literacy tests... 
quote:
So let me throw out another option(out of many others), how about no voting age at all? Germany may be moving in that direction, and legislation has been introduced to abolish the voting age altogether. Now I'm not saying this is the best option, I'm talking it out for your benefit, so before you get all hysterical, please think how this would work. I doubt the vast majority of children would even want to vote, so what would be harmed by allowing them? Massive amounts of 6 year olds would NOT be showing up at the polls and swinging elections. It is entirely likely that .01% of eligible 6 year olds would be interested/able to register to vote and vote. BUT if .01% of 6 year olds ARE interested and ARE able to register and vote, why on earth would you stop them? What are you really afraid of? |
It's likely parents would take their children out to vote with them. Thus, the children aren't voting, the parents are just using them to vote twice.
quote:
(3)Drive?
Once again, a driving age is a substitute for real criteria involving a person's ability to drive a car. We already have tests for a person's ability to drive a car, a driving age is redundant. Lets suppose the vast majority of 6 year olds are unable to drive safely and competantly. Well fine, they don't drive. That simple. If .01% of 6 year olds could pass a strict (and yes, they'd have to be much stricter than they are today) driving test, why wouldn't you want to let them drive? |
Because it would be a massive bureaucratic headache?
quote:
(5)Enter into a contract?
We want to make sure someone signing a contract understands exactly what they are getting themselves into and the implications of it. Why can't we just make sure of that? You don't need an age restriction for that. It would help out people of all ages. Look at Terrell Owens, who signed a contract and I suppose didn't fully understand what it entailed as he missed out on his free agency because of dumbly missing a filing date. If a greater effort were made to ensure those who sign contracts actually read and understood what was involved in it, then I see no need for an age requirement. |
So a little baby could enter into a contract?
The whole problem with administering "tests" to determine competency for those rights is that it creates a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. No test is perfect, or even near so, so you'd essentially be saying "those who don't agree with these things don't get to vote".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
|
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, it's because there is a constitutional amendment banning literacy tests... |
No there isn't.
quote:
It's likely parents would take their children out to vote with them. Thus, the children aren't voting, the parents are just using them to vote twice. |
Forcing someone to vote how you want is already illegal. If this is your only worry, the voting age is redundant.
quote:
Because it would be a massive bureaucratic headache? |
Uhh, we already have driving tests.
quote:
So a little baby could enter into a contract?
The whole problem with administering "tests" to determine competency for those rights is that it creates a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. No test is perfect, or even near so, so you'd essentially be saying "those who don't agree with these things don't get to vote". |
I already addressed that point about voter tests. And in the practical sense, no the little baby couldn't enter into the contract because he/she wouldn't understand it. If a young person did understand the contract then they'd be able to. Did you not read my post at all?
Also, as we already see, if someone signs a contract and can prove in court they did not understand it, or were decieved in some way they can get out of the contract. I would expect the law to act no different than it already does in this respect for youth.
Last edited by OzzyKP on 09-03-2004 at 05:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
Ozzy will understand what we're talking about when he grows up.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OzzyKP
**** you Caligastia.
See this is how racists, and ageists, and other bigots behave. When one cannot win an argument through logic, they simply use bigotry as their weapon. "I'm old, you're young. End of story" "I'm white, you're black. End of story." Very good arguing skills there.
For your information I am already "grown up" in fact I'm older than skywalker, the person I'm arguing against, who happens to be a minor. Perhaps he will understand what I'm talking about when *he* grows up. |
You haven't grown up yet because you still know everything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Verto
I know many people who only vote for a candidate because their spouse/parents/friends/dog voted for him/her. |
My dog voted for Gore in the last election. Bye bye doghouse.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-03-2004 05:19
|