Government Restriction of Minor's Ability to Purchase

[DragonMaci]

A recent ARI press release email I got said:

While the government has a right to restrict a minor's ability to purchase physically dangerous items, such as alcohol or explosives, it has no right to stop him from buying a video game.

Apparently Yaron Brook said that. But what I don't get is that if they have no right to restrict the ability of adults to purchase these things then why would they have the right to restrict the ability of minor's to purchase it?

Edited August 25, 2007 by DragonMaci

[softwareNerd]

When done right, it's just a way of enforcing the parents' wishes.

[DragonMaci]

When done right, it's just a way of enforcing the parents' wishes.

1. We don't need government for that.

2. That is the same argument being used for banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

3. What if it is not the wish of the parents? They may wish for their children to have the harmful things. Is that not their right? As I see it the government has no right to circumvent the wishes of those parents.

In short, your argument seems flawed and insufficient.

Furthermore, what is the right way? Without defining that your statement is mere conjecture.

Edited August 25, 2007 by DragonMaci

[aequalsa]

1. We don't need government for that.

2. That is the same argument being used for banning the sale of violent video games to minors.

3. What if it is not the wish of the parents? They may wish for their children to have the harmful things. Is that not their right? As I see it the government has no right to circumvent the wishes of those parents.

In short, your argument seems flawed and insufficient.

Furthermore, what is the right way? Without defining that your statement is mere conjecture.

If I can interject briefly, I believe the correct justification may lie in the fact that minors cannot legally enter into any contract that is binding. This includes purchases. For larger purchases or purchases with more serious consequences(eg buying a house, signing up for martial arts lessons, skydiving, etc) the parents must sign and take responsibility for the consequences which may ensue. Dangerous substances would rightly be subsumed under that category.

[DragonMaci]

If I can interject briefly, I believe the correct justification may lie in the fact that minors cannot legally enter into any contract that is binding. This includes purchases. For larger purchases or purchases with more serious consequences(eg buying a house, signing up for martial arts lessons, skydiving, etc) the parents must sign and take responsibility for the consequences which may ensue. Dangerous substances would rightly be subsumed under that category.

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but my point isn't about the rights of the minors. It is about the rights of the parents to decide what their children do and do not have.

[Thales]

A recent ARI press release email I got said:

Apparently Yaron Brook said that. But what I don't get is that if they have no right to restrict the ability of adults to purchase these things then why would they have the right to restrict the ability of minor's to purchase it?

Because minors are immature and when they are very young, they are very immature. Minors are not yet to the point where they can be self-responsible, and for an adult to disregard that and give a child something harmful is the equivalent of using force against the minor. If you gave a baby cocaine or some kind of poison, for instance, he could ingest it and kill himself.

[DragonMaci]

Because minors are immature and when they are very young, they are very immature. Minors are not yet to the point where they can be self-responsible, and for an adult to disregard that and give a child something harmful is the equivalent of using force against the minor. If you gave a baby cocaine or some kind of poison, for instance, he could ingest it and kill himself.

If the child and parent both do it voluntarily the government has no right to forbid it. That is a breach of the right to freedom.

[Thales]

If the child and parent both do it voluntarily the government has no right to forbid it. That is a breach of the right to freedom.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If a child is under parental guidance, then the parent is in charge, but you can't put a child in charge of his life, because he has no capacity to do so. Rights require a rational faculty, or rather a developed rational faculty. We have rights because we have a rational faculty, this is what makes mankind worthy of rights. Children are still in the process of developing that faculty, and so are not at the stage yet of having the full rights of an adult.

Rights aren't a floating abstraction, they are derived from facts of nature, specifically the nature of man. If all of mankind were like children, we couldn’t have rights.

[Drew1776]

A recent ARI press release email I got said:

Apparently Yaron Brook said that. But what I don't get is that if they have no right to restrict the ability of adults to purchase these things then why would they have the right to restrict the ability of minor's to purchase it?

There isn't a basis, Yaron Brook is simply wrong.

When done right, it's just a way of enforcing the parents' wishes.

Since when is the purpose of government to enforce parents wishes? It is the parents obligation to enforce their wishes and raise their children correctly not the government.

Because minors are immature and when they are very young, they are very immature. Minors are not yet to the point where they can be self-responsible, and for an adult to disregard that and give a child something harmful is the equivalent of using force against the minor. If you gave a baby cocaine or some kind of poison, for instance, he could ingest it and kill himself.

A minor is someone who is 17 years and 364 days old! Are you suggesting that a 17 year old is not self-responsible? As far as your baby argument, babies don't purchase things so there you go. If an adult did sell something to a minor that was damaging and he had reason to believe that it would be used in a dangerous manner then let that be PROVEN in a court of law in a civil case. That is a much better option than an arbitrary age set by the government. There was a time when children could purchase alcohol and cigarettes for their parents. This is just one example of a legitimate transaction that the government has no right prohibiting. A store owner in a town may very well give little 10 year old Sally a bottle of Gin knowing she would take it to her mother while at the same time not selling alcohol to the seventeen year old delinquents who are hanging around in the parking lot. There was a time when this was allowed which was also a time when parents had control of their children. Those days are apparently gone but the way to deal with it is to hold the parents culpable and also demand that the store owner take reasonable precautions. not to put out some blanket law that anyone under 18 can't buy cigarettes and anyone under 21 can't buy alcohol or a hand gun.

What is a 5 year old or a baby doing wandering around unattended by his parents or ther duly designated guardian? What about a ten year old? If a parent can't trust their kid to behave outside then the parents should keep a closer eye. There are lots of other "dangerous" items that kids can buy now yet those are sill legal! How about markers to get high on or pencils to stab people with or how about a rope for the hanging game!

If the child and parent both do it voluntarily the government has no right to forbid it. That is a breach of the right to freedom.

You are absolutely right. Yaron Brook's quote is completely ridiculous. In ten years we'll have Objectivists talking about how video games are psychologically scarring and the government needs to put an age limit on that.

[DragonMaci]

I'm not sure what you're saying. If a child is under parental guidance, then the parent is in charge, but you can't put a child in charge of his life, because he has no capacity to do so. Rights require a rational faculty, or rather a developed rational faculty. We have rights because we have a rational faculty, this is what makes mankind worthy of rights. Children are still in the process of developing that faculty, and so are not at the stage yet of having the full rights of an adult.

Rights aren't a floating abstraction, they are derived from facts of nature, specifically the nature of man. If all of mankind were like children, we couldn’t have rights.

I was referring to the rights of the parents, as this post makes clear:

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but my point isn't about the rights of the minors. It is about the rights of the parents to decide what their children do and do not have.

Next time brefore you complain about what people say try reading everything they say. I do not appreciate being patronised via the statement of the obvious things you mentioned - which I didn't need to be told because I did not think otherwise - because you failed to read everything I said, because you misunderstood be due to your error of not reading it all.

[DragonMaci]

There isn't a basis, Yaron Brook is simply wrong.

I agree

Since when is the purpose of government to enforce parents wishes? It is the parents obligation to enforce their wishes and raise their children correctly not the government.

That is the point I was trying to make before. The government is not there to enforce peolple's wished, it is there to protect us from the iniation of force and fraud.

A minor is someone who is 17 years and 364 days old! Are you suggesting that a 17 year old is not self-responsible? As far as your baby argument, babies don't purchase things so there you go. If an adult did sell something to a minor that was damaging and he had reason to believe that it would be used in a dangerous manner then let that be PROVEN in a court of law in a civil case. That is a much better option than an arbitrary age set by the government.

Agreed. That is the way I think it should be. Anything else is non-objective.

There was a time when children could purchase alcohol and cigarettes for their parents. This is just one example of a legitimate transaction that the government has no right prohibiting. A store owner in a town may very well give little 10 year old Sally a bottle of Gin knowing she would take it to her mother while at the same time not selling alcohol to the seventeen year old delinquents who are hanging around in the parking lot. There was a time when this was allowed which was also a time when parents had control of their children. Those days are apparently gone but the way to deal with it is to hold the parents culpable and also demand that the store owner take reasonable precautions. not to put out some blanket law that anyone under 18 can't buy cigarettes and anyone under 21 can't buy alcohol or a hand gun.

Indeed. My mum used to send me and my sister to the shop with a note to the diary owners saying we were buying ciggerates for her. Did we ever take any ourselves? No, we didn't. Obviously the responsible shopkeeper would not sell it to the child unless he knew for sure that the child really was buying the stuff for a parent.

What is a 5 year old or a baby doing wandering around unattended by his parents or ther duly designated guardian? What about a ten year old? If a parent can't trust their kid to behave outside then the parents should keep a closer eye. There are lots of other "dangerous" items that kids can buy now yet those are sill legal! How about markers to get high on or pencils to stab people with or how about a rope for the hanging game!.

Indeed. Parents should be responsible for their children, not getting government to pass legislation prohibiting what there children may buy and prohibiting the shopkeepers from selling it to them, not to mention prohibiting the parents who disagree with them. The potential harm to the child does not justify such a breach of the rights of shopkeepers and parents.

You are absolutely right. Yaron Brook's quote is completely ridiculous. In ten years we'll have Objectivists talking about how video games are psychologically scarring and the government needs to put an age limit on that.

I am not sure if things will go to that level, but it sure is ridiculous. It is also uncharacteristically non-objective for Brook. He is usually a lot better than that.

[DragonMaci]

Furthermore, the selling of such things to minors is neither an initiation of force or fraud against the minor or the parents and as such the government has no business being involved.

In addition to that, every individual matures physically and mentally at a different rate and as such might be mature enough to handle any such thing, be ie substances, sex, or guns, before other people. Setting a particular age is therefore arbitrary rather based on facts, and as such non-objective.

[RationalBiker]

3. What if it is not the wish of the parents? They may wish for their children to have the harmful things. Is that not their right? As I see it the government has no right to circumvent the wishes of those parents.

I can go with you on 1 and 2, but I disagree somewhat with 3. It is not necessarily their "right" to have "harmful things" for their children. They are supposed to be the gaurdians of the child's rights, but I don't think that would include say exercising the child's right to end his own life. The government should indeed intervene when the parent's are violating the child's rights that they are supposed to protect and allowing them to have certain "harmful things" would do just that. Parents can't just do anything they wish with their children.

If the parents want their 3 year old chilid to have a jar full of brown recluse spiders, I think the government should be involved. The issue with videos games is entirely different, if for no other reason than they aren't "harmful things".

I think it would clearer if you clarified what you mean by "harmful things".

[DragonMaci]

I can go with you on 1 and 2, but I disagree somewhat with 3. It is not necessarily their "right" to have "harmful things" for their children. They are supposed to be the gaurdians of the child's rights, but I don't think that would include say exercising the child's right to end his own life. The government should indeed intervene when the parent's are violating the child's rights that they are supposed to protect and allowing them to have certain "harmful things" would do just that. Parents can't just do anything they wish with their children.

If the parents want their 3 year old chilid to have a jar full of brown recluse spiders, I think the government should be involved. The issue with videos games is entirely different, if for no other reason than they aren't "harmful things".

I think it would clearer if you clarified what you mean by "harmful things".

I mean things like alcohol and cigerattes, not video games. Yaron Brook argued against the limiting of sales of video games to children, but argued that the government does have the right to do that for marmful goods. That sounds arbitrary and subjective to me. Why one but not the other? I see a lack of consitency there.

[softwareNerd]

In ten years we'll have Objectivists talking about how video games are psychologically scarring and the government needs to put an age limit on that.

That would not stop parents from allowing their kids to get such games.

It is the job of the government to protect the rights of parents. That's the root of such restrictions.

[DavidOdden]

If the child and parent both do it voluntarily the government has no right to forbid it.

No, they do. The point about children's rights and parental rights is not that children are some kind of quasi-property, but that children lack the capacity to make sound judgments for themselves. Objectively speaking, a child is simply not capable of making an adult decision about whether to buy 100 lbs of TNT and use it in a responsible manner. It doesn't change things one bit if the parents say "Sure Johnny, it's okay if you blow up the neighbor's cow". Parental permission doesn't suddenly make it okay for a child to endanger himself or others. Parental decision-making power comes from the custodial obligation of parents, to make judgments in the interest of the child, because the child can't soundly make those judgments himself. When a parent fails to make those sound judgments in the interest of the child, some other custodian of the child's rights is necessary. Typically, a parent would be doing their job well enough -- they would know where their child was, they would know about his money, who he was hanging around with, and they would prevent the child from buying explosives. Unfortunately, there are some crappy parents out there who will abdicate their responsibility. (Plus, there are escape-artist children who simply run away from home, who cannot be controlled by their parents). These "no-sale" laws cover that gap where the parent has shrugged off their responsibility.

I would say that the wishes of the parent are irrelevant per se. Parental wishes are generally presumed (and generally with good reason) to be in the best interests of the child. In most cases, such as decisions about clothing, hair style, vacations, pets, TV shows and video games, the consequences of error in judgment by the parent are really not so huge. Whereas, the potential consequences of selling explosives to a child (who then uses them) are quite significant, to the point that it cannot be in the interest of the child to allow them to buy explosives.

In fact, children do not have any right to buy anything, because they cannot be legally compelled to honor contracts (and a sale is legally binding agreement to exchange value for value). A fundamental principle of the concept "agreement" is that the parties have mental capacity to make the agreement. For this reason, a contract with an imbecile is also non-binding. So in order to allow children to enter into any sale, a special legal dispensation has to be made.

Because children are granted a special immunity from responsibility, due to their lack of mental capacity, in certain cases there has to be a curtailment of the right to free action. Indeed, the very idea that a man has the freedom to act however he wants is predicted on the "exception" while also respecting the rights of others. With children, that assumption of respect for rights cannot be made automatically, which is why children do not enjoy the same freedom as adults. An adult may rightly purchase and use explosives based on the fact that he will be held responsible for the consequences of his actions. A child will not be held responsible for the consequences of his actions, which means that he must be otherwise prevented from initiating force against others, namely by preventing him from possessing dangerous weapons. The restriction on sale of explosives is one way of balancing the child's lack of responsibility against the danger that his actions might pose.

[Thales]

A minor is someone who is 17 years and 364 days old! Are you suggesting that a 17 year old is not self-responsible?

A minor is someone who has not yet reached the age of 18. 18 is somewhat of an arbitrary point, since people mature at different rates, but I don't consider your criticism valid, because you are assuming maturity, and the whole point is that one who is not mature should not be able to do certain dangerous things.

As far as your baby argument, babies don't purchase things so there you go.

My example is apt, because it explains the reason. A small child could easily purchase something where he is not aware of the dangers. If the child is being supervised by an adult, it's a different matter.

I was referring to the rights of the parents, as this post makes clear:

Next time brefore you complain about what people say try reading everything they say. I do not appreciate being patronised via the statement of the obvious things you mentioned

It's not "obvious", for crying out loud. I mention these things to more fully flesh out the point, not to be "patronizing." I consider it important to make even the simplest points, because I've learned not to assume people are aware of all of these things.

- which I didn't need to be told because I did not think otherwise - because you failed to read everything I said, because you misunderstood be due to your error of not reading it all.

Anyway, at the end of the day you're talking about a supervised child, which is not the same as a child doing something on his own.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Thales

[DavidOdden]

I am not sure what you are trying to say, but my point isn't about the rights of the minors. It is about the rights of the parents to decide what their children do and do not have.

Oh, I see aequalsa also mentioned the salient point. Keep in mind that children do not have any right at all to buy anything. Then go back to your rights question -- "why would they have the right to restrict the ability of minor's to purchase it?". Because the child does not have any right to purchase it, or anything else.

[DragonMaci]

A minor is someone who has not yet reached the age of 18. 18 is somewhat of an arbitrary point, since people mature at different rates, but I don't consider your criticism valid, because you are assuming maturity, and the whole point is that one who is not mature should not be able to do certain dangerous things.

Yes. but preventing children from doing such things is the job of parents, not government.

My example is apt, because it explains the reason. A small child could easily purchase something that where he is not aware of the dangers. If the child is being supervised by an adult, it's a different matter..

See above argument.

It's not "obvious", for crying out loud. I mention these things to more fully flesh out the point, not to be "patronizing." I consider it important to make even the simplest points, because I've learned not to assume people are aware of all of these things..

I blatently said the rignts of the parents. How much more obvious can you get? It was patronising regardless of your intent. I didn't expect you to make assumption. I expected you to read my blatently saying the rights of parents.

Anyway, at the end of the day you're talking about a supervised child, which is not the same as a child doing something on his own.

See my first argument in this post.

Oh, I see aequalsa also mentioned the salient point. Keep in mind that children do not have any right at all to buy anything. Then go back to your rights question -- "why would they have the right to restrict the ability of minor's to purchase it?". Because the child does not have any right to purchase it, or anything else.

I never said it was about the child's right so would everyone please stop talking about whether or not the child has rights in an attempt to convince me!!!! Edited August 26, 2007 by DragonMaci

[RationalBiker]

I mean things like alcohol and cigerattes, not video games.

I can easily see an objective distinction between these things. Alcohol and cigarettes are physically damaging to young bodies (well any body really) and there is demonstrable evidence that that is the case. Video games on the other hand may be pyschologically damaging, maybe possibly, in some cases, maybe. There is no evidence (that I'm aware of) that a video game can actually cause harm or damage to a child, unless maybe the child tried to eat it or something. I'm strongly against parents providing video games to their children for nutritional value. More likely, video games are the subject of "religious" or "philosophical" persecution because some people don't like their subject matter. As with anything, children don't always make the best use of their time, and they don't always know how to take things in moderation so parents should be paying attention to what games their children play, and how long and often they play them.

But if Johnny goes into tunnels to play Dungeons and Dragons and really kills little Sue, Johnny has problems that were not brought on by the video (or the previous "demon", RPG games) game.

Edited August 26, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DavidOdden]

I never said it was about the child's right so would everyone please stop talking about whether or not the child has rights in an attempt to convince me!!!!

Then what is the basis of your objection to laws against selling explosives to minors? Children don't have the right to threaten others. Children also don't have the right to commit suicide. So what are you whingeing about?

[stephenmallory]

I'm not really sure about this topic, but whenever I think of it, one question always occurs to me. It may be salient, it may not be.

If a parent defaults on his obligation to act in the best interests of the child, why does that obligation automatically become conferred upon every other adult in society?

It seems to me that the best solution is, instead of having pre-determined age limits and prohibitions against certain objects, to allow the kid to buy whatever he wants while at the same time make it legal for any person to forcibly take custody of him - and take that stuff away from him if it's bad for him.

If no one claims him, yeah, he's bound to hurt himself and that's tragic, but it's only relevant to the government if he hurts someone else, as a police matter.

I just have a hard time swallowing the notion that a child, merely by virtue of existing, is entitled to anyone's attention - be that a social worker or a law maker - except his mother's.

[DavidOdden]

If a parent defaults on his obligation to act in the best interests of the child, why does that obligation automatically become conferred upon every other adult in society?

That obligation is conferred in a very limited way. Ordinarily, a parent will control their child well enough that the child will not have sex with adults (or children). Just in case the parent fails in their obligation, there are laws describing certain cases where an adult know that they still don't have the right to interact with the child in a particular way. Just as you can't have sex with a minor because the child can't consent, you can't sell explosives to a minor because the child also can't consent. These laws restricting actions with minors don't say "all adults must not act as substitute parents", it simply states that you don't in fact have consent. It basically says you are obligated to ignore the child.

[aequalsa]

See my first argument in this post.I never said it was about the child's right so would everyone please stop talking about whether or not the child has rights in an attempt to convince me!!!!

No need to get all riled up. Just a misunderstanding here. Are you suggesting that a parent's rights are infringed by their child's inability to purchase cigarettes or by their inability to use them?

[Thales]

Yes. but preventing children from doing such things is the job of parents, not government.

If you're referring to a parent supervised child, your point is a good one. However, you are here criticizing Yaron Brook, and I'm sure he's referring to a child without parental supervision.