Government Restriction of Minor's Ability to Purchase

[DavidOdden]

Questioning the legitimacy of the law is the theme of this thread.

Right; and that has been asked and answered. There has been no serious challenge to the legitimacy of the law.

I know the law cannot be infallible.

Since you have nothing to offer by way of improvement on the law and the law is legitimate, that should indicate to you that you having nothing new to contibute. Unless you decide to try to improve on the law.

[DragonMaci]

Right; and that has been asked and answered. There has been no serious challenge to the legitimacy of the law.

Since you have nothing to offer by way of improvement on the law and the law is legitimate, that should indicate to you that you having nothing new to contibute. Unless you decide to try to improve on the law.

Are you assuming I now agree that it is legitimate? If, so what are you basing that on. Note: I am not saying either that i do or don't, I just want to know if you are assuming I do and what you are basing it on if so.

[DavidOdden]

Are you assuming I now agree that it is legitimate?

Are you assuming that I ever said anything that could possibly be construed as guessing what your state of mind is? Let me repeat, in case you didn't understand my words. There has been no serious challenge to the legitimacy of the law. Anyhow, you're not taking the matter seriously, so I'm done here. Edited August 29, 2007 by DavidOdden

[DragonMaci]

Are you assuming that I ever said anything that could possibly be construed as guessing what your state of mind is?

No. I had no idea what you thought about it. That is why i asked: so i could have an idea.

Let me repeat, in case you didn't understand my words. There has been no serious challenge to the legitimacy of the law. Anyhow, you're not taking the matter seriously, so I'm done here.

Where on Earth did you get that idea from. I can tell you now, I am taking the matter very seriously.

[aequalsa]

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.

It seems like your specific circumstance was unusual, which was accommodated for, by the creation of a verbal contract with a particular store owner which allowed you to purchase ciggs for your mother. I see no problem with that.

Many laws have certain baselines, and courts and contracts exist to allow for the inevitable variation which reality demands.

[DragonMaci]

It seems like your specific circumstance was unusual, which was accommodated for, by the creation of a verbal contract with a particular store owner which allowed you to purchase ciggs for your mother. I see no problem with that.

Many laws have certain baselines, and courts and contracts exist to allow for the inevitable variation which reality demands.

Sadly, New Zealand law no longer allows that. Anyway, I like the way you worded it. I would say it was accurate. All parties involved gained something too, even me (I got a little bit of money to spend at the shop).

[aequalsa]

Sadly, New Zealand law no longer allows that. Anyway, I like the way you worded it. I would say it was accurate. All parties involved gained something too, even me (I got a little bit of money to spend at the shop).

Laws of questionable propriety or meaning can(and maybe should) be broken and then tested in court if necessary. I would be surprised to see anyone convicted in your particular circumstance by a jury. And if convicted I would be even more surprised to see a serious sentence. Mitigating circumstances. The intent of the law and so forth. That's what I mean. Courts exist to sort out the particulars.

[JMeganSnow]

Laws of questionable propriety or meaning can(and maybe should) be broken and then tested in court if necessary.

While this is true in theory, it should only be the case in practice if the involved persons stand to gain more from litigation than they will lose. I would not see it as worthwhile to litigate a law that represented the misapplication of a legitimate issue over something so small as a pack of cigarettes. It is easy enough to comply with the law in that case, because the law itself is objective and well-known.

Assuming the legal structure as a whole was objective, I wouldn't mind living in a community that had one or two goofy laws like "spitting on the sidewalk punishable by a $15 fine" or "no ponies in the parking lot". Stuff like that is so incredibly benign it's almost restful.

[DavidOdden]

Laws of questionable propriety or meaning can(and maybe should) be broken and then tested in court if necessary. I would be surprised to see anyone convicted in your particular circumstance by a jury. And if convicted I would be even more surprised to see a serious sentence.

From a legal point of view, the law is ironclad so a court challenge would be quixotic. To challenge a law there has to be a basis, either in meaning (the law is ambiguous) or constitutionality (and they don't have a single central constitution). But the law is very clear and it explicitly excludes an "acting as agent" defense. I would be very surprised to find jury nullification in such a case.

[DragonMaci]

(and they don't have a single central constitution)

We don't have any consitution at all, be it central or non-central. A lot of people call the Treaty of Waitangi a constitutional document, but I fail to see how that term applies.

[Drew1776]

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

Yes that is what happened. I type in Word for Spell checking and the formatting didn’t go through. Sorry about that (I know it is annoying)

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?

You are correct. It was a poor example and not very objective. Consider the specific statement you are objecting to as withdrawn.

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?

Yes

Someone's age is easily and objectively verifiable.

I understand the importance of objectivity in the law and I also understand that putting an age limit is about as objective as you can get.

I agree to both points so… the basis of any of these laws is that they make things objective and they make things easy.

So as you pointed out:

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…

So what factors should be taken into account. Clearly a law ought to be objective but I’d say it should also be moral. No one has responded or (at least I didn’t get it) to my previous criticism. The only basis for the government denying rights is if a person is not mentally fully developed (doesn’t have rights or has limited rights) or as punishment for a crime. It is possible that someone under 21 does have the full mental capability to understand the effects and take responsibility for drinking. An age law which restricts said person is immoral. Convenience should not be the basis of law. A person’s rights should always be respected (even if the convenient thing is to decide some age of maturity).

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

I don’t have a better legal proposal nor do I need one. I am simply identifying that age restrictions can and do trample on rights. They are objective but they criminalize activity which should be legal out of nothing more than convenience!!! I don’t have something that would be a legitimate legal remedy (gauging maturity would be difficult indeed which has been pointed out). Since I cannot imagine a law which would be objective and moral then I would say have no law regarding this matter.

Realize that this is not a plea for anarchy. Allowing younger people to purchase cigarettes and alcohol etc was not always illegal yet societies did not crumble into anarchy. There is no direct link between saying, “For this issue there is no current objective and moral remedy and consequently their should be no law” and “We don’t need laws in general”

[softwareNerd]

Realize that this is not a plea for anarchy. Allowing younger people to purchase cigarettes and alcohol etc.

Drew, Apart from the alcohol and cigarette question, would you say there should be no age limit for any type of contract?

For instance, should a 10-year old orphan be allowed to dispose of his inheritance in the absence of a will made out by his parents? (Today, typically, the court would appoint some type of trustee who will manage the money until the child is 18.)

Also, you did not comment on the rules for emancipation (linked in my previous post). Why aren't those a good way for the law to decide when to make exceptions?

Edited August 29, 2007 by softwareNerd

[JMeganSnow]

Since I cannot imagine a law which would be objective and moral then I would say have no law regarding this matter.

As an aside, this is why I have problems with any kind of obscenity/public nuisance laws: because I've yet to hear a proposal which would be truly objective.

I think the important question to ask then is, do we need a law in this arena badly enough to settle for the amoral but objective law? Is the current situation the result of the fact that people can get away with not parenting their children?

[Thales]

Realize that this is not a plea for anarchy. Allowing younger people to purchase cigarettes and alcohol etc was not always illegal yet societies did not crumble into anarchy. There is no direct link between saying, “For this issue there is no current objective and moral remedy and consequently their should be no law” and “We don’t need laws in general”

You make an excellent point. At one time kids used to be able to go to the store to buy many things, including, I believe, dynamite. On farms kids were made to do many very dangerous and difficult chores. It was expected of them and people survived quite nicely. It may be just a question of negligence and some kind of reasonable criterion. If an adult is negligent with regard to children, then the law would kick in, but you do need an objective standard, and I think that would require really studying the matter. This is the value of having an objective legal system, with professionals who are trained in such matters.

I like John Locke’s principle that the purpose of law is not to restrict, but to enlarge our freedoms, because good laws do help ensure our freedoms. It’s something to think about in relation to this problem.

[Drew1776]

For instance, should a 10-year old orphan be allowed to dispose of his inheritance in the absence of a will made out by his parents? (Today, typically, the court would appoint some type of trustee who will manage the money until the child is 18.)

A parent or guardian is responsible for watching children. Should the parents die, the new duly appointed guardian would control the money until the child emancipated himself.

Also, you did not comment on the rules for emancipation (linked in my previous post). Why aren't those a good way for the law to decide when to make exceptions?

Those seem like legitimate rules to me in the case of emancipation. However, in this case, I don't think it's a good way to make exceptions. Not only would it be costly (court fees) but a right is a right regardless of whether you take a test or convince a judge. After all you didn't have to get permission from the state to buy cigarettes or a car or enter into a contract. Why should someone of your mental capacity (no offense) have to jump through those hoops because he is not age X.

I think the important question to ask then is, do we need a law in this arena badly enough to settle for the amoral but objective law? Is the current situation the result of the fact that people can get away with not parenting their children?

Stripping someone of a right they ought to have is immoral no amoral. So I think the first question should really be, Is it ever acceptable to pass/uphold an immoral but objective law? To which I would say no. The end goal of objectivity in law would not justify the immoral means to obtain it.

[softwareNerd]

In 2001, a hospital psychologist enabled a 15 year old boy to have sex with a prostitute. The boy was dying of cancer and he wanted to have sex before he died. The parents were not told, so I assume there were grounds to think they would disapprove. 

 

I thought it was an interesting example where the minority rules just don't work. It is heartening to read that many people in the hospital were supporting and wanted to pool money for this. They finally did not do so because of the potential liability, but they enabled the boy's friends to make his wish come true.

 

Thought it was a nice borderline-type example for this thread.