Government Restriction of Minor's Ability to Purchase

[DragonMaci]

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.

That is basically the same argument used to support banning drugs. How is it any different in this case? How is it any more objective? Also, soft drink can harm them as well, so why not ban children buying that as well?

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.

Exactly what I reckon should be the case with alcohol, etc, except replace.

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?

I am not going to dignify that with an answer. I have already said whose rights to which I was referring several times. I am not going to explain to you what you are not willing to read.

[RationalBiker]

please stop talking about whether or not the child has rights in an attempt to convince me!!!!

The problem is that the rights of the child are pertinent to this discussion. That the parents are supposed to be the protectors of those rights is what makes the child's rights pertinent. When you talk about parents having the right to do things that are harmful to the child (such as allowing them to have harmful things), you are talking about violating the child's rights, those rights which they are supposed to protect. Should the parents fail to protect those rights, I think that it's fully within the proper realm of the government to protect those rights.

If you want to remain unconvinced that they are relevant that is fine, but telling people not to talk about them is probably not going to be fruitful when they do see them as relevant.

[DragonMaci]

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?

I am saying that not allowing a child to buy things for the parent violates the parents' rights.

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.

That is not what his wording means, in which case he needs to change it.

The problem is that the rights of the child are pertinent to this discussion. That the parents are supposed to be the protectors of those rights is what makes the child's rights pertinent. When you talk about parents having the right to do things that are harmful to the child (such as allowing them to have harmful things), you are talking about violating the child's rights, those rights which they are supposed to protect. Should the parents fail to protect those rights, I think that it's fully within the proper realm of the government to protect those rights.

I never said the parent has the right to harm the child! I was saying they have the right to decide how he is parented! The two are quite different.

If you want to remain unconvinced that they are relevant that is fine, but telling people not to talk about them is probably not going to be fruitful when they do see them as relevant.

My point isn't about whether or not they are relevent, but rather whether or not I was discussing them.

[RationalBiker]

That is basically the same argument used to support banning drugs.

Basically the same only if you ignore that it's entirely different when you talk about preventing an adult who has or should have the developed rational faculty to decide for himself whether or not to risk ruining his own life, versus children who by their nature lack such capacity and whose lives would be being risked by someone else. So it's not basically the same argument at all.

Certainly drawing that objective line may be much more difficult when you discuss degrees of harm, but then I don't think you let kids have explosives just because lollipops may cause tooth decay. I think the best measure we can have at that point then is to try to gauge the severity and immediacy of the harm that can be caused.

[stephenmallory]

DavidOoden,

What you're saying is that just like a parent is prohibited from acting against her child's best interests, so should every other other adult the child comes in contact with? But unlike his mother, no other adult is required to act in the child's interest?

If this is what you're saying, it's something I've never thought of before and I think it's very good, but it seems to beg another question. If the mother fails to act in the child's best interest, and if no one takes custody of the child to do so, it will die from neglect. If the government should not be able to compel society to prevent this, what difference does it make then if I sell it explosives and it blows itself up? Why have laws protecting the child from the bad decisions of shopkeepers when there seems to be no legitimate, taxpayer-rights-respecting way to protect the child from the neglect of it's mother?

[aequalsa]

I am saying that not allowing a child to buy things for the parent violates the parents' rights.

I see. They have no such rights. It would most likely not be in a shopkeepers best interests to sell anything to a child which could result in damages to the child or others because that liability would then fall on him. The parents do not have a right to make him sell to their child.

That being said, you might be able to make a case for the infringement of the rights of the shopkeeper who might choose to take some risk in selling to children. Not sure though.

[RationalBiker]

I never said the parent has the right to harm the child! I was saying they have the right to decide how he is parented! The two are quite different.

You appear not to recognize that in this discussion they are quite related!!!!! (I put the extra exclamation points in just for the fun of it, I'm not really getting mad)

The logical extension of your argument is that the parents have the right to purchase cyanide for their child's consumption if they want. Why should the government have a role in stopping parents from buying cyanide if they want their kid to have and consume it? They happen to think that's the best way they can parent the child.

Edited August 26, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DragonMaci]

I see. They have no such rights. It would most likely not be in a shopkeepers best interests to sell anything to a child which could result in damages to the child or others because that liability would then fall on him. The parents do not have a right to make him sell to their child.

I never said anything about making them. i was talking a voluntary arrangment. When I was a child my mother arranged with the shopkeppers for me to buy ciggerattes from the shop for her. I never took them and was never going to. What is the problem with that?

[DragonMaci]

You appear not to recognize that in this discussion they are quite related!!!!! (I put the extra exclamation points in just for the fun of it, I'm not really getting mad)

I am not denying its relevance. I realise it is relevant. it is simply that I have nothing to add to what has been said about it so I am not discussing it. To discuss it when I have nothing to say would be pointless.

The logical extension of your argument is that the parents have the right to purchase cyanide for their child's consumption if they want. Why should the government have a role in stopping parents from buying cyanide if they want their kid to have and consume it? They happen to think that's the best way they can parent the child.

No, that would be an illogical extension since I am talking about the child buying for the parent's consumption not the other way around.

[DragonMaci]

Why just ciggarettes and alcohol though? Why not detergent? It takes less detergent to harm or kill than it does cigerates and it acts quicker? So why not use the same argument for a age limit on that?

[BrandonMV]

Almost anything can be harmful if you use it a certain way. A child could stab himself with a screw driver or choke on cotton balls, but I don't see a problem with a child buying such items. I think that vendors should not sell items that have an intended purpose which is harmful or dangerous (such as cigarettes, swords, explosives, guns, etc.) to minors. The intended use of detergent is not harmful or generally dangerous, so I don't see the need for any law there.

[RationalBiker]

No, that would be an illogical extension since I am talking about the child buying for the parent's consumption not the other way around.

Forgive me for being confused by some of your following statements then; (my bold)

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.

It is about the rights of the parents to decide what their children do and do not have.

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

[DragonMaci]

Forgive me for being confused by some of your following statements then; (my bold)

That was then and this is now. Just because I argued something before does not mean I am still arguing it. I abandoned that argument. That is why I never responded to arguments against it. I don't defend arguments that I abandon.

[Moebius]

I am saying that not allowing a child to buy things for the parent violates the parents' rights.

Why is it violating the parent's rights? Let's make this clear: the parents are allowed to buy those items.

So we're talking about a kid showing up at a store, and simply telling the owner that he is buying those same items for his parents. Now, realistically there is no way for the store owner to determine whether a child has parental permission or not if the parents weren't present. So basically you end up with a situation where the store owner basically either sell items to any kid that shows up, or he doesn't sell it to any minor at all.

Why do you expect the store owner to just implicitly trust every random child that shows up?

[softwareNerd]

That was then and this is now. Just because I argued something before does not mean I am still arguing it. I abandoned that argument. That is why I never responded to arguments against it. I don't defend arguments that I abandon.

Frankly Kane, it is often hard to tell what you're arguing and when you've changed your argument. You would do well to rethink your position, and then re-state it.

Added: When you re-state your position, you should explain whether a stranger has the right to pull up to a 9 year old girl, waiting for a school-bus and give her a ride to school, candy, and anything else, as long as she assents. If not, then you need to explain by what right the government should prevent the consensual interaction between two such human beings. Once you've clarified that, you can go on to explain how the principle changes when it is about cigarettes and 18 year olds.

Edited August 26, 2007 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

But unlike his mother, no other adult is required to act in the child's interest?

I'd say "parent or guardian", not just mother, but otherwise yes.

If the mother fails to act in the child's best interest, and if no one takes custody of the child to do so, it will die from neglect.

Yes, it is sort of imaginable, but I don't think it has any real likelihood of happening. The only possibility for that would be abandonment of a child who cannot present himself to others, for example an infant or a small child living in a mountain cabin 50 miles from the nearest person.

If the government should not be able to compel society to prevent this, what difference does it make then if I sell it explosives and it blows itself up?

Remember that at the core, children have no legal right to buy anything. An exception is made for harmless stuff, but not for harmful stuff. The difference is two-fold. First, the child must be prevented from initiating force against others, and it is highly unlikely that a child would acquire explosives for a rights-respecting purpose. Second, basic benevolence would allow (and not obligate) a kindly old lady to adopt an orphan or abandoned child and serve as the custodian of the rights of the child, when necessary restricting his actions to protect his life. It would also allow (but not compel) the government to objectively characterize certain cases of extreme harm to the child and state that people may not directly or indirectly inflict that level of harm on the child. That would include (non-exhaustively) torturing a child, enslaving a child, having sex with a child and providing a child with explosives or deadly toxins.

[DragonMaci]

Why is it violating the parent's rights? Let's make this clear: the parents are allowed to buy those items.

So we're talking about a kid showing up at a store, and simply telling the owner that he is buying those same items for his parents. Now, realistically there is no way for the store owner to determine whether a child has parental permission or not if the parents weren't present. So basically you end up with a situation where the store owner basically either sell items to any kid that shows up, or he doesn't sell it to any minor at all.

Why do you expect the store owner to just implicitly trust every random child that shows up?

I meant situations like mine where my mother had already made prior arrangements with the shopkeeper. There is then a realistic way for them to determine if the child has parental permission. In such a situation the child can usually be trusted. What then is wrong with selling the thing to the child?

Frankly Kane, it is often hard to tell what you're arguing and when you've changed your argument. You would do well to rethink your position, and then re-state it.

I would of thought that not arguing the point, not defending it when it is criticised, and continually trying to steer the argument away from my abondoned argument by saying I am not arguing that made it blatently obvious that I had abandoned it. It is no fault of mine if you or others miss such obvious signs.

Frankly Kane, it is often hard to tell what you're arguing and when you've changed your argument. You would do well to rethink your position, and then re-state it.

I would of thought that my not arguing it anymore, my not defending it when it was argued against, and me continually saying I am not arguing that would of made it clear that I had abandoned it. It is not fault of mine if you and others miss or ignore such obvious signs.

Added: When you re-state your position, you should explain whether a stranger has the right to pull up to a 9 year old girl, waiting for a school-bus and give her a ride to school, candy, and anything else, as long as she assents. If not, then you need to explain by what right the government should prevent the consensual interaction between two such human beings. Once you've clarified that, you can go on to explain how the principle changes when it is about cigarettes and 18 year olds

I never argued that. Please don't twist my words like that. A better anology to my argument would be this: an adult that the parent has arranged to pick up the child and give it candy has the right to do so. The government should not prevent such consenual interaction. So you see there is not change. Edited August 26, 2007 by softwareNerd
Fixed closing quote

[RationalBiker]

I would of thought that my not arguing it anymore, my not defending it when it was argued against, and me continually saying I am not arguing that would of made it clear that I had abandoned it. It is not fault of mine if you and others miss or ignore such obvious signs.

It's not that obvious, and it is your fault. Having abandoned a particular argument is in no way a concession of that argument, and can be taken in different ways. It wasn't clear until you actually said you "abandoned" that argument, which I take to mean you conceded that you were wrong. Next time instead of changing your argument mid-stream, you should specifically say that you have conceded or "abandoned" a particular argument not just yell about some particular point you don't want to hear anymore. You just kept screaming you didn't want to hear about children's rights, you never conceded or said you didn't want to argue that parents don't have to the right to just let their child have anything harmful they want to give them or that the child wants "if they both agree".

Edited August 26, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DragonMaci]

You just kept screaming...

No, I was adding extreme emphasis, not screaming. Screaming would of been using all capitals, such as THIS IS, not using italics, bold, and underline at the same time. Those three are means of emphasis, therefore using all three at the same time is a means of extreme emphasis, not screaming.

Edited August 27, 2007 by DragonMaci

[Moebius]

I meant situations like mine where my mother had already made prior arrangements with the shopkeeper. There is then a realistic way for them to determine if the child has parental permission. In such a situation the child can usually be trusted. What then is wrong with selling the thing to the child?

What I still don't understand is what right of the parents do you think has been violated? The right to have your child run errants for you? Where is that right derived from?

Now I assume you have no problems with a store owner not selling these things to minors except in special circumstances like the one you described. And I assume that you have no problem with the idea of certain things being restricted from minor in general (as in, we will not have to engage in a discussion of why each and every item should or should not be allowed). Well for one thing the store owner still faces persecution regardless of his agreement with the mother. From a law enforcement perspective it would be very impractical for them to treat all such violations on a case by case basis. Just like how some kids are responsible enough to drink alcohol well before 21, but the law does not deal with each and every kid on a case by case basis.

But let's take the assumption further and assume persecution isn't a problem. I still do not see why the store owner should necessarily implicitly trust the kid. What if normally he buys a bottle of wine or two for his parents, then one day he suddenly showed up and asked for a keg of beer (you can also replace the item in this example with anything ranging from cigarettes to guns, ammos, weapons)? Why should the store owner comply? Or for that matter, why does he need to check out each kid's story every single time, when he can just tell the parent "if you want this, come get it yourself"?

Again, the bottom line question is what right of the parents exactly is being violated in this case? They are perfectly allowed to make their purchase, with only the stipulation being that he or she needs to be there in person.

[JMeganSnow]

Personally, if I were a store owner I wouldn't allow unattended children *in the store*.

There is a world of difference between restricting someone from causing harm to children and demanding they provide support for children. The one is the proper sort of negative right (the right to not be harmed), while the second is a positive right (the right to have support).

That being said, it's perfectly rational for the government to restrict sales of things that cause physical harm in fashions that children are not equipped to properly judge. I think drugs, incendiaries and weapons are a pretty good basis for that.

A definite age limit is also necessary for the purpose of objectivity. You can dicker that a particular number is too high or too low (just as you can argue that patents should be good for longer), but approximations work reasonably well.

[DragonMaci]

Personally, if I were a store owner I wouldn't allow unattended children *in the store*.

I see no good reason not to allow a unintended 13 year old into your store.

There is a world of difference between restricting someone from causing harm to children and demanding they provide support for children. The one is the proper sort of negative right (the right to not be harmed), while the second is a positive right (the right to have support).

The right to have support? What are you talking about?

That being said, it's perfectly rational for the government to restrict sales of things that cause physical harm in fashions that children are not equipped to properly judge. I think drugs, incendiaries and weapons are a pretty good basis for that.

Then by that same rationale they could restrict the sale of these things to adults that have not been able to develop beyond the level of a child due to brain damage or a defect.

A definite age limit is also necessary for the purpose of objectivity. You can dicker that a particular number is too high or too low (just as you can argue that patents should be good for longer), but approximations work reasonably well.

How is it objective to punish someone for doing something under the legal age when they have the capability to understand their choice and what they are taking? (I am talking about someone that matured at a particularly fast rate, as happens sometimes. It is rare but it does happen.)

As a side question, what do you all think of the way the New Zealand law allows 16 and 17 year olds to drink alcohol under adult supervision, but not buy it for themselves until they are 18?

Edited August 27, 2007 by DragonMaci

[DavidOdden]

How is it objective to punish someone for doing something under the legal age when they have the capability to understand their choice and what they are taking?

First, I'd suggest that you listen to Rand's interview on Objective Law (free on the registered users page of ARI) to understand objective law. It is objective because the law explicitly prohibits certain criminal acts. Second, in this thread, the discussion is about selling dangerous objects to children, and there is no punishment of children involved.

[RationalBiker]

Then by that same rationale they could restrict the sale of these things to adults that have not been able to develop beyond the level of a child due to brain damage or a defect.

Except you are not using the same rationale. Objectivism and it's principles are based on man's nature, not the exceptions of "broken units". Man's nature as an adult is that of a being capable of rational decision-making. Children by their nature have not fully developed their rational decision-making capabilies. No one has even talked or brought up the subject of the exceptions; handicapped, brain-damaged, etc. etc.

[DragonMaci]

First, I'd suggest that you listen to Rand's interview on Objective Law (free on the registered users page of ARI) to understand objective law. It is objective because the law explicitly prohibits certain criminal acts. Second, in this thread, the discussion is about selling dangerous objects to children, and there is no punishment of children involved.

But in this circumstance they are able to handle and understand the substance and their choice, as well as the consequences of both, so the whole reason for the law does not - and should not - apply. (Note: I am talking about the reason you and others gave for the law, not the law itself.) If the reason does not apply, why should the law?

Except you are not using the same rationale. Objectivism and it's principles are based on man's nature, not the exceptions of "broken units".

The point is the nature os his mind is that of a child, not that of an adult. He cannot mentally handle or understand the substance, his choice, or the consequences of both any better than a child can. So, the point is that mentally their is no differnce. Also, note I was using that as a criticism of your argument, not actually supporting that rationale.

Man's nature as an adult is that of a being capable of rational decision-making.

That's the point: he isn't capable of making rational decisions because he has the mentallity of a child. So, hwat you mention is not his nature even as an adult.

Children by their nature have not fully developed their rational decision-making capabilies.

And neither are the adults I mentioned.

No one has even talked or brought up the subject of the exceptions; handicapped, brain-damaged, etc. etc.

I did. You responded to me bringing it up.