spawnofthepilgrims

That's true. It's not a bad idea, but from my research it doesn't seem that adequate. Some states require you to be living on your own first, which requires the parent's permission to begin with. Cases are usually only granted in instances of physical abuse, pregnancy, marriage (with parental permission), or military (with parental permission). Most of the decision seems to still be up to the parent, in most states you cannot even start the emancipation process by yourself if you are a minor. Furthermore, current work laws make it difficult for a minor to be completely self sufficient to begin with. This doesn't mean they are incapable, just that laws don't allow them to be. Every state seems to be different, but I found none that seem to be a solution. In theory, I would be open to a system that allowed minors to make their case before a court, but what we currently have doesn't impress me. It is better than nothing at all, but we can do a lot better.

I can tell you that it's true that few people here will compliment you for being honest and next to none will pity you. They probably won't tell you "all you have to do is try" either. On some intellectual level you must have known that before you came here, so I can only assume you sincerely want to change based on that. That said, here goes. Being the person you want to be (one that is content with yourself and does not seek approval from others) will require taking every belief you have and holding it to the harshest criticism (Ayn Rand has said something similar, and I have found it very true). Base everything on what you know to be true (things that are provable, logical, based on reason). Throw out any inconsistencies in your beliefs. Take that time to really determine what your philosophy is and hold every decision you make in life to those standards. This is very important. Without it, it is easy for things to become chaotic and sad because you are basing your decisions on emotions you've never taken time to examine the source of. Objectivism can help you examine your beliefs, so take time to read Ayn Rand and other objectivist authors (nonfiction books as well) but it cannot save you from yourself. You cannot be consistent with your reality and lie. Lying denies reality. A lot of the personality quirks you mentioned are a result of not being consistent with or fully knowing your beliefs. Philosophy is very important, you will find it is linked to just about everything in life, but few people ever identify this. Being smart is great, but nothing without a moral background to help implement it. Do this first, apply what you've learned to every aspect of your life, and happiness will come. Anything less is a waste of life.

Very well said.

A minor is someone who society has determined is not capable of making their own decisions. Adults make decisions for them and take responsibility for them in most situations. If someone were self sufficient, no part of their life would depend on others to survive (trade is obviously a means of being self sufficient as well, it does not mean they would have to grow their food, etc). Therefore, no one else has any claim to their life. This is something that can be proven. A billionaire trust fund baby would have to possess the capability to make good decisions with the money and be capable in other regards than finances or he would perish in a society where parasites were not allowed to thrive. This is the kind of system I would support, one that is based on capability. Age is not an accomplishment. If a minor decides to be self sufficient and thus no longer a minor, he is held responsible for every action he makes. Rights come with responsibilities. If he fails, rights are taken away and he cannot survive on his own. If he succeeds, it is no one's concern but his own. This would be the objective test and it is based entirely on results. If you want the right to live on your own, the test is living on your own. Your own ability will determine whether or not you were capable. If you want to vote, take a test that examines your knowledge on our political system and agree to all responsibilities that come with voting (you would have to create some number that would determine where you pass or fail, but I would prefer that to an age that is not based on capability at all). If you want to use the meat cutter at work, you agree to be legally responsible for any accidents. If you want to work at any job that you aren't considered old enough for now, you work there and either prove your capability or you don't. Your success would depend on your employer, as opposed to laws that dictate this for the employer like we have now. Any person's capability can be tested and rights should be based on nothing else. The gaining of the rights minors want would be linked directly to the responsibilities. This would also create an environment that fosters growth as opposed to irresponsibility. I still have no idea how a blood test can determine whether or not someone should be allowed to vote, so I cannot comment. A behavioral test would determine how well someone does according to society's standards, not how well they will do for their own sake. You have to give someone the chance to prove their capabilities. This is something that can be proven and could determine if they can use their rights without infringing upon the rights of others. If you value individualism, nothing else should matter. Those are standards everyone should be held to, regardless of age. There is, in fact, no such thing as arbitrary dreamland, only hell. Logic can always be proven and applied to real life, otherwise it is not logic. In order to be relying on the fallacy of imperfection, I would have to view or current system as a solution. I do not. I don't see anything as a solution that allows one person to be dictated by another based on nothing but what is considered to be the "average" person (one that reaches maturity at 18). I see it as an easy fix meant to avoid the problem. The problem cannot be fixed until we identify what makes one capable to begin with. Certainly it is not age, I have seen far too many exceptions (and been one of them myself) for that to be true. As a logical person, I attempt to make solutions more perfect every day (I do not see this as an unattainable goal). Relying on a system that you believe is not perfect and not trying to make it better only allows for stagnation. If you believe our current system is as good as it can get, you will never have anything better, and apparently you will have to sacrifice some of your own beliefs to do so (based on what you said, which was that you thought there should be an objective standard). Otherwise, we can find a solution and grow. I know which scenario I will be happiest with and I have outlined the beginning plans for a new system above.

I will gladly discuss things using logic, I never use anything else. I can agree that I said C=A or C=B. I do not agree with the conclusions you made from those statements. From C=A, you said surely I could see no connection between taxes and voting. I can, and I explained that several times. From C=B you decided that meant I wanted positive discrimination when I was listing options to eliminate taxation without representation in our current system. I will discuss logical implications of my own statements, but I will not agree to your opinions on those statements until you have backed them with logic. So far, I'm honestly not even sure what your arguments against mine are, I only know that you disagree with them.

So things you know to be true, such as whether or not the person is self sufficient and willing to take responsibility for their actions is arbitrary? Since when? If someone meets that criteria, why should anyone have right to a second of their life? Giving an arbitrary age is easy, but not the only solution. Logic being applied to real life problems is never arbitrary, since logic relies on things that can be proven. Whether or not someone is self sufficient is not arbitrary, it can be proven. If someone agrees to terms that make sure they do not depend on anyone else for their survival (thus, no longer a minor) and they are held accountable to those things; why should age matter? Can you justify taking rights away from a mature 17 year old? For whose benefit is it to do so? Certainly not theirs. I don't understand the blood test comment.

For me it would be a deal breaker. I love my boyfriend based on common values and goals. If he were to cheat, it would mean part of who I thought he was before was false. Thus, not the person I fell in love with. It all comes down to what kind of relationship you want and whether or not you can still have that when you're completely honest with yourself.

Knowing

True. Those are facts of reality as well. Facts of reality can be changed, but we do have to acknowledge them. If we eliminate taxes, taxation without representation is solved. Setting an arbitrary age as the "age of maturity" will still not be solved. As long as the subject is minor's rights and our tax system has not been changed, I will list taxation without representation as one of the problems. Fair enough? Would you mind telling me what you view as a child? I'm not clear on how you are defining that. Are you saying there is never a 16 year old that is mentally capable or an 18 year old that isn't? I don't think I can comment further until you clarify that.

I'm Alive by Disturbed Divide by Disturbed

I can only work with reality. Reality is that we do pay taxes. Until we change that, everyone should at least be represented. It would be irresponsible to try to ignore that fact. Any effort to try to change that people pay taxes, I will be the first to help. Until then, I'll work with what we do have and try to improve it. Paying taxes may always be evil, but as long as we do it I believe all people that are "mentally capable" should be represented. I hope I can help you figure out my position, I have tried to be very clear.

I have always agreed with those conditions regarding whether or not someone can vote. It should be based on who they are as an individual, not as a stereotyped group. However, if someone has not reached those conditions (or whatever conditions society is using), how can you justify them paying taxes? You cannot refute that voting has a huge influence on how tax money is spent, which laws are made, and how they are enforced. My point has always been this: Voting should be based on objective terms, not an arbitrary age. If you have determined that someone cannot vote in a system where voting influences taxes (which is what we currently have, right or wrong), that person should not pay taxes. That has always been my opinion on the subject.

I agree with you completely. If a group of people want to pay someone for their protection, they pay for that. Value for value. If they want a road, they do that too. I think it's the simplest system in the world. My concern is that we haven't changed the system yet and we are unlikely to do it all at once. If we are talking minor oppression, I feel taxation without representation is an issue until we change the tax system.

It's not what I wished I had said, I said it. I said the tax system was immoral in post #40. In post #41 I said our tax system was not like the system I wanted. In post #45 I said there was no way to justify a tax system that didn't allow people to say where their money went. Then I went on to say if you cannot justify a system you should change it. So yes, let's do things based on what I said. That being said, it would be irresponsible of me to ignore reality. Reality is that we pay taxes, I wish that were different but it isn't. Therefore, I assumed we were talking about whether or not it was ethical for minors to pay taxes in a system where they cannot vote. I see no way to change everything wrong in our politics at once, we would do things in steps. If we want to change minor oppression, taxation without representation is a huge factor. I have explained the connection between voting and taxation in great detail, I have not seen anything proving that they aren't connected. I have also said paying taxes is not the only prerequisite to voting, however. I cannot make an argument that I never agreed with from the start. I didn't realize it were possible to go on a digression about taxes after several people state that taxes are immoral in a thread about minors rights. I started talking about it because people weren't focusing on the issue of minors anymore. They didn't seem to be okay with even talking about it until my views on taxes were clarified. I was fine with that, so I clarified. Let's move on. If you want to talk about whether or not minors should be able to vote, let's do that, using all factors involved (taxation is just one of them). It promises to be a much more productive subject than this.

That's true, but do you honestly think politicians care as much about the public opinion of those that don't determine whether or not they are reelected? I do believe public outcry can be divided. If a law is specifically related to minors, they might be the only ones outcrying. How can that possibly hold as much weight as voters have? Let's say a bill comes up to decide whether or not teenagers should have curfews (related to driving and such). Most teenagers would be against that. Most parents would be for it (this is based on observation of character alone). I don't see those two sides holding equal weight. This would lead to more laws being biased towards adults over time. Therefore, minors would not be as oppressed if they could vote. I have said that tax paying is not the only prerequisite to voting. There is still a major link between tax paying and voting that you can't ignore. People that understand the value of money should more closely observe this link than anyone. Not only does it influence what purpose your money should be spent on, any time the government enforces property rights, contract breaches, etc they use tax dollars to do so. Salaries of lawmakers, salaries of policemen, salaries of judges, etc. I was never ignoring those other factors, I see the link very clearly. I do think people should decide whether or not they want to be taxed, anything else is robbery. I don't think a system that allowed people to pool their money together for a common goal would be unethical, however. This is assuming that it is completely voluntary and only those that participated determined its use. It could be similar to a toll road, everyone that uses it pays for it. Definitely not taxes judged by how things are currently done, but it is a system where money can be pooled together to achieve goals faster (that doesn't ignore individual rights). If our voting system remains the way it is, there is no way to justify minors being taxed. The link is that they cannot vote to determine their money's use and any protesting they have would be outweighed by people that can vote. Can you disprove any of these statements that link tax paying to voting? *Politicians are elected by voters *Politicians determine laws and influence how tax money is spent *Politicians are influenced by voters *Laws are enforced by government employees paid by tax dollars Furthermore, can you justify a system that bases how rights are given to individuals by an arbitrary age? It is unarguably the easy thing to do, but is it ethical?