Argh. I hate this.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It may not be fair to deny full rights to young folks.  But is IS sensible.  

Long experience has shown that most young'uns lack the necessary perspective and experience to make serious life and death decisions well.  So we don't give them life or death decisions to make on their own.

There are also the rights of the parents to consider.  Parents ought to have legal authority over their children.  If we grant full rights to children, then there would be no legal way for the parents to have any say in how their children are raised.  It would be left entirely to the children to decide.  

Maybe that would work in some libertarian utopia fantasy.  But in the real world, that would be a disastrer.

[Perd Hapley]

One age limit is what is needed.  Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.

Why?

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

We've ALL been in those mid to late teen years, straining at the bit for our freedom.  

Those of us who have the perspective of age and experience can look back and know just HOW risky that prospect (freedom over life and death decisions, etc.) would have been for MOST of us at that age, before we understand that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand.

Some of you argue "yeah, but *I* am the EXCEPTION to the rule; my wisdom surpasses all known measure.  It is a crime to humanity to NOT empower me with these freedoms, since *I* could singlehandedly solve all of society's ills."

Sorry, bub.  It's been scientifically proven that the adolescent brain (meaning from puberty to about age 23) is FAR from fully developed; in fact, it has significant areas which are physiologically non-functioning until that process is complete.

I was one of the 'giveittomeNOW' kids, too.  Tried to convince the adults that I needed an emergency exception so I could have my Dr License at 14, had my mom convinced, but it wouldn't fly with dad.  Thankfully.

The results of granting freedoms before responsibility can be handled:
Death or incarceration.

[K Frame]

I personally am in favor of letting 5-year-olds drive.

I figure that gives me about 2.5 years before mtnbkr's daughter parks a car on my chest.

[Guest]

I think children should be their mothers' property until they mutually agree to separate themselves by contract. At that time, the youngster, probably at about the age of puberty (but no particular age) takes on all of the "rights" and responsibilities of adulthood. Third parties should not have a say in the matter, including the fathers.

[jefnvk]

One age limit is what is needed.  Whether it be 18, 21, or something else, everything needs to be the same.

Why?

It really makes no sense to say that you are a member of society with all responsibilities, yet you aren't really mature enough to have these rights.  Furthermore, some of these limits seem like they are just arbitrary numbers.  Does it really make sense that an 18 year old can handle a shotgun, but is too immature to handle a .22 revolver?  Why does it make sense that teens can drive anywhere they want at 16, but can't drink at home?

mercedes, could work.  Unfortunately, I'm gonna say that you would have to involve the father.  And it would mean that the kid is no longer supported by their parents.

[Guest]

...mercedes, could work.  Unfortunately, I'm gonna say that you would have to involve the father.

Why? Having two people arguing over who owns the kid causes all kinds of problems now. Having one owner solves more problems than it creates.

And it would mean that the kid is no longer supported by their parents.

Yes, the new adult would have to support himself.

[jefnvk]

Why? Having two people arguing over who owns the kid causes all kinds of problems now. Having one owner solves more problems than it creates.

Why?  Because the kid belongs to both.

The only other problem I see, is what if one decides to never accept the contract?  Would there be some age at which they are automatically seperated?  Say, if at 23 or 25 one party is still holding out then if the other wants out, tehy can get out?

[Guest]

Why? Having two people arguing over who owns the kid causes all kinds of problems now. Having one owner solves more problems than it creates.

Why?  Because the kid belongs to both.

That's your assertion/opinion. Mine is: "Things would work smoother and better if the mother, alone, was considered to be the owner of her children." I am asking you to temporarily think "outside the box".

The only other problem I see, is what if one decides to never accept the contract?  Would there be some age at which they are automatically seperated?  Say, if at 23 or 25 one party is still holding out then if the other wants out, they can get out?

Maybe it should be the mother's decision, alone?

[jefnvk]

Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it wer ethe kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?

I can see your point about one person making it easier.  However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this.  If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time.  Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.  It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready.  That is not always a bad thing, though.  It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.

[Guest]

Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it were the kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?

Didn't accept her own sole decision?

I can see your point about one person making it easier.

I didn't say it made it "easier". I said it solves more problems than it creates.

However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this.  If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time.  Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.

I am confused. Shouldn't I be opposed to a system that is the oppposite of my favored one?

 

It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready.  That is not always a bad thing, though.  It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.

What is the bad consequence in your scenario? What would the wife be trying to force the father to do? "Buy me a fur or I'll liberate my son!"

[zahc]

Felonius Fig and others: I am 20 years old, and live half a country away from my parents on my own, and have for years now. If/When (hopefully never) I am the victim of violent crime, perhaps at my second job delivering pizza, I will be sure to remember that I'm not mature enough to legally defend my life like an adult. I have the house, the bills, and I pay the taxes. With responsibilities should come rights. Specifically handgun ownership.

You may say, 'All those complaining seem to conveniently want the age limit lowered to their age'.

I say, notice how all the people defending the tyranny are convenienly old enough that it doesn't affect them. Just another case of 'too much scary freedom for that OTHER group of people'.

The idea of a contractual 'adult contract' is an intriguing one, though.

[Guest]

Perhaps the reason the current generation is brain-dead has to do with the fact that our society treats them as such.

Nope,  society created the problem.  Not requiring anything of "kids these days" is the biggest catalyst.  as a farm kid, i grew up working constantly, and goofing off any time i wasn't.  I learned respect for my parents early,  and that with responsability came rewards.  a minimum of time was spent in front of the TV/video games.  All that work brought me money for whatever i wanted (1st kid with a truck bought and paid for CASH in my school), and i even managed to save a bit of the money i made)

unlike the majority of my peers during highschool, who did jack *expletive deleted*it other than dick around on skateboards and listen to music about suicide after school and bitch constantly about how rough they had it (or pretend to be depressed and wear all black).  Don't even start me on the "ganstas"....  lack of discipline and work ethic is the issue.  this generation was given too much free rein too soon,  it was NEVER earned.      

BTW, class of 04' here.

[hoppinglark]

The system we have is good, at 18 you're an adult EXCEPT for handguns and alcohol.
If we put those two at 18 then it would make sense, and while we are at it, go ahead and raise the driving age to 18, because after all the automobile is the single most dangerous consumer product.

I'm 25 by the way. So none of this would affect me directly since this year I'm finally old enough to rent a car in all 50 states.

[HForrest]

This is my problem with charging minors as adults for crimes. I don't care how heinous the crime is or how much the perpetrator deserves an adult punishment, minors are legally judged to be too stupid to handle adult responsibilities, and have little freedom... so they shouldn't be treated like an adult when considering punishment for crimes.

[Guest]

This is my problem with charging minors as adults for crimes. I don't care how heinous the crime is or how much the perpetrator deserves an adult punishment, minors are legally judged to be too stupid to handle adult responsibilities, and have little freedom... so they shouldn't be treated like an adult when considering punishment for crimes.

If you are talking pre-pubescents, you should be allowed to charge the mother. She is the one that raised an uncivilized person and neglected to protect society from her property.

[Stand_watie]

Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it were the kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?

Didn't accept her own sole decision?

I can see your point about one person making it easier.

I didn't say it made it "easier". I said it solves more problems than it creates.

However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this.  If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time.  Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.

I am confused. Shouldn't I be opposed to a system that is the oppposite of my favored one?

 

It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready.  That is not always a bad thing, though.  It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.

What is the bad consequence in your scenario? What would the wife be trying to force the father to do? "Buy me a fur or I'll liberate my son!"

You're not just trying to get out of child support payments are you?

Your fatherless society has already been tried with abysmal consequences in sub-saharan africa and welfare projects all across america.

[Stand_watie]

Felonius Fig and others: I am 20 years old, and live half a country away from my parents on my own, and have for years now. If/When (hopefully never) I am the victim of violent crime, perhaps at my second job delivering pizza, I will be sure to remember that I'm not mature enough to legally defend my life like an adult. I have the house, the bills, and I pay the taxes. With responsibilities should come rights. Specifically handgun ownership...

I don't know where you live, but handgun posession (actual ownership at any age) is legal at 18 in many states. Carrying a handgun with a permit at 18 is legal in Indiana, I think without a permit in Alaska and Vermont.

You have a very good point though. In four or five more years my ten year old daughter will (hopefully) be responsible enough to carry a gun unsupervised and within a short time after that have as much need for one as any grown woman, although not yet likely to be mature enough to  marry or vote.

[Perd Hapley]

Merc, the children-as-property concept sounds similar to that of ancient Rome.  Are you familiar with pater-familias?  Sounds worse to me, though, as fathers are much more capable of supporting their kids financially.  Your idea would lead to a whole lot more struggling single momma's than we have now.  

Since you like contracts so much, try this.  In your proposed anarchic world, sex entails a contract whereby each participant tacitly agrees to raise and support any products of said union and to support the other parent.  Sound good?

[Guest]

Merc, the children-as-property concept sounds similar to that of ancient Rome.  Are you familiar with pater-familias?  Sounds worse to me, though, as fathers are much more capable of supporting their kids financially.  Your idea would lead to a whole lot more struggling single momma's than we have now.

Why more? Maybe it would lead to a lot fewer "single" mommas, period? Maybe the phony statist fantasy that the father will be tracked and fined all around the world through his SS number on his driver's license would give way to actual planning on how to raise the child before it appears?  Why can men automatically earn more money? There would be no child support disagreements. It is usually fathers that are associated with child abuse and incest.

Since you like contracts so much, try this.  In your proposed anarchic world, sex entails a contract whereby each participant tacitly agrees to raise and support any products of said union and to support the other parent.  Sound good?

Two owners makes it harder to assign responsibility for the child's uncivilized actions.

[Guest]

Making it the mother's decision alone would work if it were the kid that didn't accept, but what if it were the mother that didn't accept?

Didn't accept her own sole decision?

I can see your point about one person making it easier.

I didn't say it made it "easier". I said it solves more problems than it creates.

However, I don't think making it easier is the best reason for this.  If anything, this should be a hard process to ensure that the kid is being emancipated at the right time.  Furthermore, the two person system works to prevent the opposite that you are trying to prevent.

I am confused. Shouldn't I be opposed to a system that is the oppposite of my favored one?

 

It seems you are worried about one parent holding up the process, because they don't think the kid is ready.  That is not always a bad thing, though.  It is not hard to see situtations where the kid is begging to be released, and the one parent holding that over the other's head that they alone can do it at any time.

What is the bad consequence in your scenario? What would the wife be trying to force the father to do? "Buy me a fur or I'll liberate my son!"

You're not just trying to get out of child support payments are you?

Yes.

Your fatherless society has already been tried with abysmal consequences in sub-saharan africa and welfare projects all across america.

I never suggest a "welfare project"; I am a Free-Market Anarchist.

 What actually happened in Africa, Stand_watie?

[Chuck Dye]

Ahh!  Perhaps what we need is Heinleinian justice:  let the kiddies do as they wish but ruthlessly cull the screwups.

[Stand_watie]

... What actually happened in Africa, Stand_watie?

I don't claim to refer to Africa as a whole. In matriarchal africa, kids do, and have done what kids without fathers have done ever since...

a)God created man

or

b)We were apes

which is to act like animals. Same in the welfare projects. Take dad (or mom for that matter) out of the family and you get animals.

[Guest]

... What actually happened in Africa, Stand_watie?

I don't claim to refer to Africa as a whole. In matriarchal africa, kids do, and have done what kids without fathers have done ever since...

a)God created man

or

b)We were apes

which is to act like animals. Same in the welfare projects. Take dad (or mom for that matter) out of the family and you get animals.

I'd better stay away from the Africa topic but suffice it to say I don't advocate welfare nor abolishment of the family. Only that the mother own the child until puberty or 13 or so for legal purposes. Of course, fathers can stay with the mom and child at their pleasure and contribute voluntarily. Forcing them to causes many negative consequences.

[brimic]

Of course, fathers can stay with the mom and child at their pleasure and contribute voluntarily. Forcing them to causes many negative consequences.

I like that idea under one condition: a man who fathers a child and doesn't want to have anything to do with it should be neutered  to prevent him from putting any future burdens on society.