Government Restriction of Minor's Ability to Purchase

Political Philosophy
41

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.

42

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.

43

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”.

44

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.

45

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.

46

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.

47

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?

48

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.

49

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.

50

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.

51

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.

52

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.

53

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).

54

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.

55

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.

56

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.

57

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?

58

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.

59

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.

60

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?