Government Restriction of Minor's Ability to Purchase

[DragonMaci]

Let me add this: even if it was objective to restrict substances or actions to children (and we will assume it is for the purpose of this post), how do we objectively determine what age they should be allowed to take the substance/perform the action?

Edited to improve clarity.

Edited August 27, 2007 by DragonMaci

[RationalBiker]

The point is the nature os his mind is that of a child,

Basing any set of principles on the "nature" of each and every different individual would be called Subjectivism. That is not the focus of this forum. On this forum, we discuss Objectivism (or we are supposed to), which looks at man's nature as he is supposed to be (and typically is). One person does not have a "nature" that is distinct from that of man as a whole. If his brain doesn't function as a man's brain should, whether at childhood or adult age, he is "broken" and you don't develop philosophical principles to guide man's life based on the exception. That mentally retarded people exist is non-sequitur to applying proper philosophical principles and rights to man's life based on man's nature, whether child or adult.

Therefore whether or not a law should exist to prevent a gun purchase by a man who is 42 years old but has the mental capacity of a 5 year old is irrelevant the argument as to whether a law should exist that prevents a "non-broken" 5 year old from buying a gun. Yes, the mental capacity may be the same, but the application of rights and philosophical principles is not.

Also, note I was using that as a criticism of your argument, not actually supporting that rationale.

I was quite aware of that. It doesn't change how irrelevant it is to the discussion.

I did. You responded to me bringing it up.

Okay, my point was that nobody else had brought it up because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand. On the face of things, it would appear that you haven't read much at all on what Objectivism has to say about man's nature and what it says about "broken units". If you do want to discuss "broken units" in a topic where they are relevant, it might be good for you to read up on the Objectivist position on these things because that is what we are supposed to be discussing here, the application of Objectivism's principles and such.

[DavidOdden]

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?

First let me remind you of what you actually said: "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?" As I said, there is no punishment of someone under legal age (I assume you understand the concept of "punishment"). Second, assuming that you did as I suggested and listened to Rand's "Objective Law", you should recognise that these laws are objective. As she states, "An objective law is a law which defines objectively what constitutes a crime or what is forbidden and the kind of

penalties that a man would incurr if he performs the forbidden action. Objective means defineable, graspable by a rational consciousness". You may be unhappy with a law prohibiting the sale of explosives to anyone under 18 and subjecting violators to a fine of $500, but that does not change the fact that this is an objective law. (In contrast, anti-trust, as Rand continues, is non-objective law, because no man can know in advance whether they have violated the law).

The law does not state "this law does not apply if the child {claims, intends} to be purchasing goods for a parent". Such a law would ignore the purpose of the law in the first place. The nature of objective law is that it simply applies, as written. If you propose an alternative statement of the law that still serves the purpose of the law is still enforceable, then such a law would be a plausible replacement. However, we have no objectively stated alternative law at hand.

The age of majority is arrived at empirically, by observation of the conduct of children. The auto insurance industry has sorted this matter out very systematically by looking at the correlations between age and accidents, and have come up with good formulae. That's a very specific use and thus not generally applicable to all legal matters, but the method is the same. The actual reason why the age is 18 was that we "needed" to be able to draft 18-21 year olds for Vietnam, which make it difficult to argue that people that age were not capable of taking full responsibility for their lives. The post-hoc observation is that lowering the age of majority was not a disaster (except wrt the drunk-driving problem).

[DragonMaci]

Second, assuming that you did as I suggested and listened to Rand's "Objective Law", you should recognise that these laws are objective. As she states, "An objective law is a law which defines objectively what constitutes a crime or what is forbidden and the kind of penalties that a man would incurr if he performs the forbidden action. Objective means defineable, graspable by a rational consciousness". You may be unhappy with a law prohibiting the sale of explosives to anyone under 18 and subjecting violators to a fine of $500, but that does not change the fact that this is an objective law. (In contrast, anti-trust, as Rand continues, is non-objective law, because no man can know in advance whether they have violated the law).

But is it just to punish a shopkeeper who sells the cigerattes to a child in a situation like the one where I did it for my mum? Note also that the shopkeeper new my attitude towards cigerattes, i.e., that I hated them, so he knew I would not smoke them myself.

The law does not state "this law does not apply if the child {claims, intends} to be purchasing goods for a parent". Such a law would ignore the purpose of the law in the first place. The nature of objective law is that it simply applies, as written. If you propose an alternative statement of the law that still serves the purpose of the law is still enforceable, then such a law would be a plausible replacement. However, we have no objectively stated alternative law at hand.

Is there really anything wrong with what happened with me, my mum, and the shopkeeper though? No one was harmed and there was never any possibility of anyone being harmed.

The age of majority is arrived at empirically, by observation of the conduct of children. The auto insurance industry has sorted this matter out very systematically by looking at the correlations between age and accidents, and have come up with good formulae.

To which country do you refer? Different countries have different ages for each minimum age law.

On the face of things, it would appear that you haven't read much at all on what Objectivism has to say about man's nature and what it says about "broken units".

In order I have read: TVOS, The Fountainhead, PWNI, Atlas Shrugged, CTUI, and Anthem. I have not read OPAR, ITOE, FTNI, and Omnibus Parrallels (the latter is almost impossible to get in New Zealand sadly), so I admit I have a lot to learn about Objectivism.

Edited August 27, 2007 by DragonMaci

[DavidOdden]

But is it just to punish a shopkeeper who sells the cigerattes to a child in a situation like the one where I did it for my mum? Note also that the shopkeeper new my attitude towards cigerattes, i.e., that I hated them, so he knew I would not smoke them myself.

When you say "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?", that means the person being punished is the under-age person. Now, apparently, it seems that you want to ask a totally different question, namely "Is it just to punish a person for breaking a law when they believe that their violation of the law does not contravene the purpose of the law". The nature of objective law is, as Ayn Rand said, that it "defines objectively what constitutes a crime or what is forbidden and the kind of penalties that a man would incurr if he performs the forbidden action". Note the use of the word would, not might. If laws are not enforced, then they become subjective -- the penalty is imposed just in case the tyrant decides to actually enforce the law rather than disregard it.

I don't buy the claim about what the shopkeeper "knew". He may feel personally confident of your good intentions, but you know what material the road to Hell is paved with. If there were some objective test of this claim that would prove that indeed you would not smoke the cigarettes, or that you would not use the explosives to destroys a neighbor's property, then that objective proof can be part of the law.

[DragonMaci]

Now, apparently, it seems that you want to ask a totally different question, namely "Is it just to punish a person for breaking a law when they believe that their violation of the law does not contravene the purpose of the law".

What? Whether or not they believe they violated the law has absolutely nothing to do with my question. I am totally confused about how you could think otherwise. Nothing in my wording implied that.

I don't buy the claim about what the shopkeeper "knew". He may feel personally confident of your good intentions, but you know what material the road to Hell is paved with. If there were some objective test of this claim that would prove that indeed you would not smoke the cigarettes, or that you would not use the explosives to destroys a neighbor's property, then that objective proof can be part of the law.

He could reasonable assume I would not smoke them, just as he could reasonable assume that a friend of his who hates cigerattes would not smoke them. Also, could you please stop trying to smuggle explosives into it. I am not replying to that for a reason; it is not concievable that a parent would trust a child to get some for them. Not only because of whether or not the child would use it, but because even if the child wouldn't, the child could not be trusted to safetly transport it. By that I mean without it exploding, which means a loss of the explosives (anyone that asked the child to fetch them obviously does not care about the child). Please stop trying to smuggle in something that would never concievably happen. The same goes with guns. It is inconcievable that a parent would ask a child to fetch it.

Edited August 28, 2007 by DragonMaci

[softwareNerd]

DragonMaci, David isn't "smuggling" explosives into this. It is you who need to exclude explosives by stating you think it is okay to have restrictions on their sale. Perhaps you agree that the government may restrict minors from buying some things (like explosives) even if their parents say they may, but that you are merely questioning the applicability of that principle to cigarettes and alcohol? From your posts, it seems you might also think it it okay to have a restriction where the parent's view is unknown.

So, even though you have framed many of your posts broadly, you seem to be asking a very specific question: viz. "in the case of cigarettes and alcohol, should the law allow sale to a minor if the seller has received the parent's permission for such a sale?" Is that your real question?

[DragonMaci]

So, even though you have framed many of your posts broadly, you seem to be asking a very specific question: viz. "in the case of cigarettes and alcohol, should the law allow sale to a minor if the seller has received the parent's permission for such a sale?" Is that your real question?

Originally I was talking broadly, but now I am asking only about the situation I was in as a child, not the broader issue. I want an answer on what people think about that before returning to what I think on the broader issue.

[RationalBiker]

The same goes with guns. It is inconcievable that a parent would ask a child to fetch it.

It's not just conceivable, it's very realistic. I deal with parents from time to time in my occupation that would do exactly that. I deal with parents that use their kids to shoplift from stores, carry their narcotics, etc. etc. There are parents out there that willingly expose their children to all kinds of dangerous substances and behaviors.

Edited August 28, 2007 by RationalBiker

[DragonMaci]

It's not just conceivable, it's very realistic. I deal with parents from time to time in my occupation that would do exactly that. I deal with parents that use their kids to shoplift from stores, carry their narcotics, etc. etc. There are parents out there that willingly expose their children to all kinds of dangerous substances and behaviors.

1. I was talking guns and explosives, not substances.

2. Surely you don't expect me to suddenly think it is concievable just because you say you have delt with such parents?

3. What occupation are you referring to?

[RationalBiker]

1. I was talking guns and explosives, not substances.

Yes, so was I. I included the other examples as well.

2. Surely you don't expect me to suddenly think it is concievable just because you say you have delt with such parents?

Nope, not at all. You are free to think what you will. Since my credibility with you is so lacking, you needn't worry about me responding to any of your posts in the future short of fulfilling necessary moderator duties.

3. What occupation are you referring to?

22 combined years as a police officer, corporal, and sergeant.

[DragonMaci]

Nope, not at all. You are free to think what you will.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place?

Since my credibility with you is so lacking, you needn't worry about me responding to any of your posts in the future short of fulfilling necessary moderator duties.

It isn't a matter of credibility. It is a matter of simply taking your assessment on the concievability of it in faith.

[softwareNerd]

Originally I was talking broadly, but now I am asking only about the situation I was in as a child, not the broader issue. I want an answer on what people think about that before returning to what I think on the broader issue.

When it comes to specifics, I would not want cigarette sales banned, but would support a ban on the sale of liquor to people under a certain age.

[DragonMaci]

When it comes to specifics, I would not want cigarette sales banned, but would support a ban on the sale of liquor to people under a certain age.

What age? 16? 18? 20? 21? And what do you think about the way New Zealand law has a different age for drinking (assuming adult supervision) than for buying?

[DavidOdden]

Whether or not they believe they violated the law has absolutely nothing to do with my question.

I'm simply trying to explain to you what questions you actually asked, since you seem to be unaware of the difference between what you actually say and what you think you had in mind.

He could reasonable assume I would not smoke them, just as he could reasonable assume that a friend of his who hates cigerattes would not smoke them.

No, he cannot reasonably say that. And the law makes that fact explicit.

[KendallJ]

That is why I never responded to arguments against it. I don't defend arguments that I abandon.

How about explicitly acknowledging that you have abandoned arguments so that we all can know that too?

[DragonMaci]

I'm simply trying to explain to you what questions you actually asked, since you seem to be unaware of the difference between what you actually say and what you think you had in mind.

You're right I don't see it. That is because there isn't one. You misinterpreted.

No, he cannot reasonably say that. And the law makes that fact explicit.

But I wasn't going to smoke them if I hated them now was I?

[DavidOdden]

But I wasn't going to smoke them if I hated them now was I?

That doesn't change what the law says.

[DragonMaci]

That doesn't change what the law says.

I didn't mean to suggect that it did. I wanted to know about what people thought of the fact that it happened, not what the law said. Note: at the time it was legal in New Zealand for parents to send children to buy cigerrates for them (though that did not extend to other age restricted substances and items), so it was not illegal because what the law said included mention of that as an exception, though it was strict in saying when it could be an exception (i.e. it said the parent had to make prior arrangements with the sdhopkeeper first; the child couldn't just rock up with a note and get them for its parent).

[Drew1776]

Just so I understand, I believe we are defining a minor as someone who is under a certain age set by law vs. someone who doesn’t yet have the conceptual faculty to understand the consequences of his actions. If that is the case then the topic title question is, “does the government have to right to restrict purchases based on age?”My responses are all based upon the above assumptionsLaws which restrict purchases based solely on age aside from being completely arbitrary are also immoral at their root. Such laws potentially deprive a mentally mature human being, who happens to be under age X, of his rights. Rights are gained as a person matures mentally ie. Grasping the full consequences of his actions. The source of rights is not and never should be an arbitrarily (or non-arbitrarily) age set by the government. If an alien was discovered who had a cognitive faculty similar to that of humans (and he has an understanding of rights) then his rights must be respected. It would be stupid to say, “Nope, sorry you don’t have rights because you didn’t meet our qualification that only humans have rights.” Similarly, if a human being below the age of X has the cognitive faculty to understand exactly what he is doing than it is just as illegitimate to say, “Nope, sorry you don’t have rights because you’re under X” and deny his rights. After all his rights are not granted by the government (or Objectivists who think they know at exactly what age boys become men) they are innate and should be respected to the mental level of the individual. Just because some (or many) people below the age of X aren’t mature enough to understand the consequences of cigarettes, alcohol, etc it does not follow that all are. Using force to strip those individuals, who are responsible, of their rights is immoral.So you want an objective law eh? 1. Parents are responsible for the well being and actions of their children, not the store manager, and certainly not the government. So sure under my system bad things would happen to some children. But no one’s rights have been curtailed for the sake of convenience.

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.

See aboveI agree if we’re talking about immature not fully developed children than those individuals should not be able to do certain dangerous things. If however, we are saying anyone under 18 is immature then my criticism is valid.

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.

Approximations may work reasonably well for you but denying a persons right even out of convenience is still immoral.

That doesn't change what the law says.

The whole point of this thread is discussing the legitimacy of the law not what the law says.

[DragonMaci]

The whole point of this thread is discussing the legitimacy of the law not what the law says.

Yes, thank you, you are rght. To everyone: can we please return to the legitamacy of law, not what thelaw says?

[JMeganSnow]

Just for the record so I don't get a pointless post from DragonMaci declaring that he never said that and why would I think he did, I AM RESPONDING ONLY TO DREW. NO PART OF THE FOLLOWING POST IS DIRECTED AT YOU OR ANYTHING YOU SAID IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVER.

Did you edit this post and have all the formatting knocked out? A huge mass of text is very difficult to read.

So you want an objective law eh? 1. Parents are responsible for the well being and actions of their children, not the store manager, and certainly not the government.

How is this "objective"? Are you saying that my parents, who live in Seattle and speak with me, maybe, once a month, are responsible for it if I buy dynamite and blow up my neighbor's house?! Or are my grandparents responsible for their responsibility?

In order to have any kind of law delineating who is responsible for the behavior of children (and such a law is necessary because children have fundamentally different capabilities from adults), it is necessary to state who is still, under the law, considered a child. Since you can't know how "mature" someone is by looking at them (or by asking their parents), the best way to arrive at a determination is by placing an age limit. Someone's age is easily and objectively verifiable. You could, if you liked, replace this with a height test. (You must be this tall to ride the ride.) However, this would mean that my family, which contains people that were 5'10" when they were eleven years old (me and both of my brothers) "matures" much faster than others. I hardly think this is the case, not to mention the fact that unless you set the height requirement quite low some people will never reach this status.

Time passes at the same rate for everyone, so that makes age a good measure; it does not depend on any external or internal factor. You can dicker that the age should be lower or higher and present objective statistics (as DavidOdden has suggested) of why this is so.

I don't think it matters whether you simply say that parents are 100% responsible for everything their children do or whether you prohibit everyone from engaging in certain kinds of relationships with children. I think the latter method more accurately reflects the fact that part of parenting is granting your children gradually increasing levels of responsibility and freedom as they age, culminating with full legal recognition when they are no longer your children.

There are a great many factors to take into account when deciding how to set up a law to deal with a certain aspect of reality, and rationalistic bullcrap doesn't assist in discovering what these factors are and what are the best methods for approaching them.

[softwareNerd]

Drew,

I understand that you agree that the law may restrict the actions of people who are immature (i.e. do not yet have the mental capacity to enter into contracts), but you are questioning the use of age as the criteria. Is that a correct statement of your position?

Everyone here will agree that people mature at various ages. So, a law that is based on a single age cut-off will obviously make some people wait, and may give others rights that they aren't ready to handle.

Legal system that use age-based cut-offs often allow different things at different ages. This is one way of taking into account that people don't wake up after 17 years and 364 days and find themselves mush wiser than the day before. Second, legal systems sometimes have a way to handle exceptions, where (say) a 14 year old convinces a judge to free him from the control of his guardians. [Check out "emancipation".]

If you don't like age, then you have to propose a better alternative. What test/criteria would you suggest?

[DavidOdden]

The whole point of this thread is discussing the legitimacy of the law not what the law says.

There isn't any serious question over whether the law is legitimate -- of course it is. At best the question is whether it can be improved. I don't see any evidence that it can be improved. You guys seem to be stuck on the false dichotomy of infallible law vs. anarchy. The whole point of this thread is, in fact, that the law does what it is supposed to, and eliminating the law would be completely disfunctional.

To return to the fundamental point, a child has no right to purchase anything, or to act as an agent for another rights-haver. Rights and responsibilities are not separable matters. I cannot understand why you fail to understand this point and continue to go on about the rights of the child. At least Kane understood at one point that THE CHILD'S RIGHTS ARE NOT BEING VIOLATED!!!!!!!!!!!! That's just being emphatic, not shouting.

[DragonMaci]

There isn't any serious question over whether the law is legitimate -- of course it is. At best the question is whether it can be improved.

Wrong. Questioning the legitimacy of the law is the theme of this thread. It is the reason I started it.

I don't see any evidence that it can be improved. You guys seem to be stuck on the false dichotomy of infallible law vs. anarchy.

I hope you aren't talking about me, because I do not think that. I know the law cannot be infallible.

The whole point of this thread is, in fact, that the law does what it is supposed to, and eliminating the law would be completely disfunctional.

That was not my point and I am the one that started this thread.