Age Of Majority
Age Of Majority[... from LetsDefineRights?]
My 14-year-old daughter and I [some time back] had a very interesting discussion about AgeOfMajority (especially as applied to right-to-vote), with some interesting conclusions.
The discussion centered around the rationale used to lower the voting age (in the USA) from 21 to 18 years of age.
I remember that one of the arguments in favor of this move was that "if our boys are old enough to die for their country, they are old enough to vote for the leaders who send them."
More than 200 years ago, when the nation was being formed, the average age for just about anything was lower than it is today, including picking up a gun and going to war. In that context, where 17-year-olds were already raising families and 15-year-olds were doing a man's work, the founders set the age of majority at 21 years.
Today, when kids take longer to mature in any meaningful way than they did back then, we've handed them the right to vote 3 years earlier.
There was much more discussion and many other little points, but that's the essence.
The net effect is that we've given the vote to a segment of the population that has not had the chance to accumulate any wisdom, but will respond well to emotional manipulation.
Our conclusion (remember, she's 14 at time of discussion) was that the age of majority had been adjusted the wrong way. It would be more appropriate to adjust it to 25 (she favored 30).
I bet you'd get a lot of 18-to-29-year-olds in favor of this if it were bundled with a complete exemption from paying taxes.
There's more to this discussion, but I'll add it later. In the meantime, perhaps there are other perspectives on this.
Rebuttal and counter-argument:
How do you expect people to become politically mature if you don't let them be politically active in the first place? This is another example of "you need work experience to get a job." Children need to learn that voting doesn't matter sooner rather than later. TOO FUNNY!
Children's vulnerability to emotional manipulation is matched by educated people's cold-heartedness. If children are naive, at least they haven't suffered a long period of indoctrination at the hands of our propaganda system, nor have they been coopted by our economy, nor have they any vested interest in the social status quo. This gives them a unique and distinct perspective which must be included.
Children's lack of "wisdom" doesn't matter since the goal of democracy isn't to zero in on the best technical solution to achieve a given goal but to decide what are valid goals in the first place. Children have valid life goals of their own that must be incorporated into any societal plan.
The decision to risk one's life and mental health in order to kill other humans in the armed forces is one that requires vastly more emotional maturity than the average everyday political decision. -- RichardKulisz
I don't understand the initial argument. Most teenagers do not really have the understanding necessary to properly direct a country, but neither do most adults. Most do not have the experience of raising a family, running a farm, or killing people who wear different uniforms, but what is it about such things which are necessary to qualify someone as a voter?
Except that the vast majority of this age group doesn't vote, rendering their right to do so, and its potential impact moot: http://www.fec.gov/pages/agedemog.htm. -- BillCaputo
It sounds as if with the wisdom gained with maturity includes the desire to vote... back in the day when 17-year-olds were raising families, there may not have been much desire with them to vote anyway?
For all we know, this represents disinterest in the current system as being run by old guards. The statistics suggest that some young people would vote, and they would probably be those most interested in the outcome. One can't withhold rights on the grounds that they might not be exercised.
Governing another human being solely based on the premise of age is equally ludicrous as any other discrimination. Whether it be a restriction of voting privileges or a minimum required age to consume alcohol, it's a prejudice rational. It's degrading and belittling to be told that one is void of the personal freedoms exercised by those physically elder; it stinks of arrogance and it cuts many at the knees.
An idea I just had: how about a weighted vote? With 14 you get a quarter vote, with 21 a half and it approaches one near 70.
Not far from truth as it is... participation seems to increase steadily with age, thus the older voters more forcefully represent their interests. Why do you suppose the debate over SocialSecurity? is always at the forefront?
The author one above is a prejudiced narrow-minded youth-hater. Whereas:
I wonder if this is only theoretical question, because voting does not mean much anyway.
Do I detect a flavor of "people become stupider or more evil as they age" as a concept? What a truly depressing thought. It would seem then that the longer you work to get good at life, the less qualified you are to be a participant.
This reminds me somewhat of the unrelenting mantra of MtvAndNickelodeon?, "kids are smart, grownups are dumb," and, "the younger you are, the more privilege you should have."
Please tell me I have misinterpreted this.
You've got it right on. First, adults get stupid and evil as they get coopted by corporations and indoctrinated by the media. Second, it's an established fact that seniors are conservative and traditionalist for both psychological and economic reasons. (Back in my day, you'd get a solid whipping for that, boy!) Seniors shouldn't be allowed to mortgate the future for their own interests, nor should they be allowed to impose their values on a generation that has already rejected them. So not only do adults get more stupid and evil in political matters as they age, but the next generation starts out less stupid and evil than the previous one did. But of course, this is all statistical and doesn't mean that any particular person becomes more stupid and evil as they age.
[I think this page is a candidate for deletion: it's off-topic, linked to only from the page it was refactored out of, and there hasn't been any activity on it since 26-Jan-2004. -- GeorgePaci]
EditText of this page
(last edited June 24, 2006)
or FindPage with title or text search