My Name Is Vladimir Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 (edited) I've been observing this board for some time and occasionally come across threads like this that drive me crazy. What follows is a rant on the subject. I solicit your feedback. In the above-linked thread, DragonMaci and Drew1776 attempt to argue that age restrictions on alcohol/tobacco are "arbitrary" and should be eliminated. Apparently they didn't realize the obvious implication their views have for age of consent laws. How could anyone honestly argue that we because there isn't a exact moment when everyone becomes mature, we should get rid of all age restrictions? Is there an exact moment when prison sentences become just? For example, Class B felonies require a minimum of 25 years in prison. Dear God, that's an "arbitrary" number! We should get rid of prison sentences! No, these numbers are not arbitrary, they are approximated. 24 years and 11 months may be an okay sentence for a Class B felony, but 2 years or 100 years wouldn't. Similarly, 15 years and 11 months may be an okay age for sex, but 10 or 30 wouldn't. So clearly, there is a finite range of possible numbers. The important legal point is that we choose a number within that range and stick with it. Why? Because in a free society laws must be predictable. For example, a distinct minimum age allows all alcohol/tobacco merchants to easily follow the law without having to psychologically evaluate every customer who appears young. Obviously, approximations are not exact - that's part of the definition. Surely there are some very mature teenagers who fall under the legal limit for something. For a government charged with protecting rights, however, it is far more preferable to make mature kids wait a few years, than allow immature kids to become victimized. Ideally, the age will be somewhere to the right of the maturity bell curve, ensuring that most kids are protected, without unnecessarily prolonging the wait for those who are already mature enough. And that concludes my rant. Thank you. Edited November 17, 2007 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 I solicit your feedback.I don't know what to say: when you're right, you're right. It's a common objection to measurements to say "That's arbitrary! Why not plus or minus a nano-unit!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cogito Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 For my view on topics like this, see here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
O.K. Stone Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Further, a minor can be emancipated if he proves in court that he is indeed a mature person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miles White Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 To me though the way I see it, It makes no sense to give an 18 year old the right to purchase and smoke cigars in public/ die in a war/ star in a porno and still refuse to let them drink. It's just another example of beautiful bureaucracy at work, it makes no sense to raise the drinking age any higher than 18 that is not only pointless but harmful to our rights as mature citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Name Is Vladimir Posted November 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Cogito, thank you for the clarifying blog post. I have not read IOS yet so I'd be delighted if she touched on the subject of arbitrary vs. optional. Miles, I agree with you regarding the drinking age - I would favor lowering it to 18. Laws that allow for a lower age with "parental supervision," however, are ridiculous. These laws exist specifically because there are bad parents who cannot be trusted to look after their kids' interests. If all parents were perfect, there would be very little need for minimum age laws at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 17, 2007 Report Share Posted November 17, 2007 Laws that allow for a lower age with "parental supervision," however, are ridiculous.If you mean this specifically in the context of drinking, then I'd disagree with your suggestion of 18 years as being the drinking age. Parents should definitely be allowed to let their kids drink before that age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Name Is Vladimir Posted November 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 If you mean this specifically in the context of drinking, then I'd disagree with your suggestion of 18 years as being the drinking age. Parents should definitely be allowed to let their kids drink before that age. What is so special about the context of drinking, that parental supervision becomes relevant? Why aren't you applying that principle to tobacco, or sex? If you just disagree with 18 as the minimum age for drinking, I can understand that. But creating a special exception for kids who drink with parental supervision is a awful idea. There are plenty of bad parents who will abuse such an exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 If you just disagree with 18 as the minimum age for drinking,...No, I dispute that allowing one's child to drink per se, at any age above a toddler, amounts to child abuse. However, that does not imply that the government should let the child decide, or should let any random stranger decide what the kid is ready for. There are two types of government rules here: one set is to prevent parents from abusing their kids, the other set is to allow parents to make decisions that their kids are deemed unable to make with maturity. Each of these may be fleshed out with more details about ages and what exactly is permissible or not. However, the principle is that there are two sets of reasons why the government gets involved, not just one set. Otherwise, one would have to ban parents taking their kids to certain churches too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My Name Is Vladimir Posted November 18, 2007 Author Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 There are two types of government rules here: one set is to prevent parents from abusing their kids, the other set is to allow parents to make decisions that their kids are deemed unable to make with maturity. Each of these may be fleshed out with more details about ages and what exactly is permissible or not. However, the principle is that there are two sets of reasons why the government gets involved, not just one set. Okay, understood. The specific ages and alcohol amount permissible is a legitimate discussion that I'm not prepared for, but I agree with you in principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrier of the Zero Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 Surely there are some very mature teenagers who fall under the legal limit for something. For a government charged with protecting rights, however, it is far more preferable to make mature kids wait a few years, than allow immature kids to become victimized. Why should the mature and capable individuals be punished and restricted to protect the immature from the consequences of their decisions? This sounds like the kind of reasoning behind all altruist policies: punishing the strong, capable, intelligent, etc. in order to protect the less strong, capable, intelligent. EX: Why shouldn't productive individuals pay more taxes to take care of the poor? They can afford to do so, and some one really needs to take care of those less fortunate... or: Because some people are irresponsible, stupid, or criminal with regards to gun ownership, then no one should be allowed to own them. So I'm not sure who's rights are being protected by not allowing the mature individuals from exercising theirs, or by protecting the less mature from themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aequalsa Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 To me though the way I see it, It makes no sense to give an 18 year old the right to purchase and smoke cigars in public/ die in a war/ star in a porno and still refuse to let them drink. It's just another example of beautiful bureaucracy at work, it makes no sense to raise the drinking age any higher than 18 that is not only pointless but harmful to our rights as mature citizens. In the past I had some issue with the age(s) of majority being so inconsistent. Drive scooters at 14, motorcycles at 15, cars at 16, go to war, vote, and smoke at 18, drink at 21, be able to afford car insurance and rent cars at 25 ....but recently, I have been reconsidering it. People develop slightly differently on an individual level, but many more things are similar then are different(despite what adolescents will usually argue) and I currently hold the notion that this approach is justified. Children, and people generally are capable of different levels of responsibility at different points, and to thrust the whole of adulthood on someone at a single point could be overwhelming in our rather complex culture. As to the particular rules and ages chosen, there is plenty of room for debate, but the general idea is a correct one, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted November 18, 2007 Report Share Posted November 18, 2007 (edited) Moderator Note: Several posts were recently removed because they detracted from the purpose of this thread. I take the blame for that. I attempted to resolve an issue with a member that should have been handled a different way. I apologize to that user and to the rest of the forum. Edited November 18, 2007 by RationalBiker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.