About two years ago now, I was sitting on a bench in Central Park writing my initial thoughts on what I didn’t know then but would come to know as Youth Rights.
I don’t think I’ll ever remember why she did, but about halfway through the day Greta Thunberg came to mind, and I looked up the voting age in Sweden. And my blood boiled in a way I’ve never experienced in my entire life.
16 years old and one of the most famous and recognizable political activists in the world. 16 years old giving a confident, impassioned, admonishing speech to the fucking UN. 16 years old with no legal right to a voice in her country. No voice to vote for the policies she believed in or the people who might enact them.
My writing, already vitriolic to a fault, managed to become even moreso but with the topic abruptly switched to voting. For the first time in my life, I considered where I’d place the voting age if I could do so unilaterally. Not long into considering it I had a thought that I wrote down immediately, a question I’ve asked well over 100 times at this point with no substantial answer:
When is it reasonable to say to a person, ‘If you’re not at least this old, then I don’t give a fuck what you think’?
And from the moment I had that thought, I have been unable to place the voting age.
This is the age you should be able to: vote drink be liable as adult for everything join the military smoke (please don’t)
One age to do everything. 18 is ‘Adult’, that means no age restriction beyond that. At least until you get to retirement age.
What is that based on, though? Why a single age for everything, when it might make sense to have it more “targeted”. For example, wouldn’t it make sense to allow voting in local elections, where things are usually simpler and cause and effect clearer, at a younger age?
Similarly, why tie drinking regulations, which are based on physiology, to voting age, which has nothing to do with it? You may say it’s because if the person is mature enough to vote they can decide themselves, but there is a huge amount of things I’m not allowed to buy or consume even if I’m allowed to vote, so that argument doesn’t hold (unless you advocate 100% liberalization of everything).
Having just a single age limit just makes it all seem very arbitrary, which it shouldn’t be.
My point is, at a specified age, you are considered an Adult. If you are old enough to die in a war and vote for candidates, you are old enough to drink, own a gun and whatever else. I personally think that 19 or 20 would be a better age for adulthood.
Does that include e.g. doing hard drugs? Are you also allowed to e.g sell hard drugs, or e.g. potentially harmful products, such as power tools without certain currently legally mandated safety features if the buyer is an adult? Are you allowed to sign away certain rights that you are currently not allowed to sign away, e.g. should an adult be allowed to sign themselves over to slavery without the possibility to undo it?
I feel like it was pretty obvious they meant you could do everything that’s legal once you reach that age. I don’t think anyone is arguing that laws applying to everyone should just disappear at a certain age.
But the point is that just because you are old enough to vote, doesn’t mean you are necessarily mature enough to make certain decisions.
One could well argue that if the reason we are not allowed to heroin is related to health, or crimes due to addiction, then an 18 yo should not be allowed to use it, but a 90 year old would. I would even argue that we might want to allow hard drugs to 80 year olds, who probably can take responsibility by then.
Join the military and ask yourself that question again
I’ve already served in the military. What question am I supposed to ask again? Or do I need to re-enlist first? I’m not sure they would accept me at my age anymore.
I have no clue what you were getting at with the drugs, but depending on the circumstance, teenagers that are of the age to enlist can do certainly do these things. I went through two furloughs where I didn’t get paid on deployment and didn’t get compensation. In fact, at one point my checks were garnished because my admin screwed up on per diem when I initially had them check everyday before my transfer to make sure the money was right. They got so pissed at me that their chief told me to not approach their office again with this issue, and they fucked me anyway. I owed around $5000 to the Department of The Treasury because they told me the leftover monet wasn’t an error and that I could go on with my life. That was wrong. And what was I supposed to do? Not do my job? If I would have done that, I would have got an NJP which would have costed me 50% of the 25% that was already garnished. So how is that not slavery or at the very least indentured servitude?
And let me make it clear, I signed the contract that said, “You’re officially government property.” we pay you as long as you do what you’re supposed to do. I did what I was supposed to do and got fucked anyway. I couldn’t pay my rent or bills, so the utilities reached out to my command and I got fucked even more. I had to go to financial management training and was barred from living out in town. You telling me that’s justified?
And with power tools, if you seem like you have a brain in your head, the military will throw you power tools. 17, 18, 19. Doesn’t matter
No, I’m not, and I’m not sure why you think I am.
Before I answer that. I’d respectfully ask you clarify what you meant by your comment then. I might have misunderstood
Removed by mod
It is all arbitrary though. There are some weak arguments about mental development but other than the generally accepted rule that human brains stop developing at around 25 years old, there isn’t any hard science between 16, 18, 21, or whatever. Individuals hit developmental milestones at different ages, whether they are physical or mental. Each age-restricted activity requires different types of development. A high schooler may be able to make an informed decision on who or what to vote for, but will be subject to peer pressure to drink alcohol to a dangerous level. You can now sign up to potentially get killed in an instant at 18, but you can’t intentionally give yourself cancer slowly. Kids have better reflexes than seniors, but are also more reckless (imo both ends of the age spectrum should require more frequent driver’s testing and restrictions).
So since it’s all arbitrary, either we make everything one age, and 18 is a common median of the age-restrictions, or we ditch the restrictions entirely and rely on more extensive and expensive regulations based on individual development.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod