What ever happened to the young socially-aware person of the 1960s? Oh yeah...we keep them in socially conditioned mind-prison, now. Check out these links and discuss or debate: ASFAR NYRA
Of course. Do you think I'd post something non-controversial? Not that I, personally, agree with the entire platform of these groups... But, if there is an opinion out there that is out of the ordinary, I want to hear it!
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here: 1) The driving question is very simple. If you can pass the license test, you should be able to drive. Shit, look at the way some of the ADULTS drive!! My 14 year old cousin could drive better. 2) Drinking age laws keep young people out of clubs, bars, and other establishments that serve alcohol, but they hardly prevent them obtaining it elsewhere. Overseas, where drinking ages are much lower or non-existent, young people have few problems with alcohol. It is because of the "all-or-nothing" mentality promoted by the drinking age -- not the immaturity of young people -- that Americans have such serious problems with alcoholic beverages. 3) Alternatives to the voting age could include some kind of voting test, a requirement of legal emancipation, or voting rights upon employment, among others. Given that people of younger and younger ages are getting interested in politics, and that about 50% of people over 18 who have the right to vote don't make use of it, why can't a 16 year old interested vote while a 40 year old who knows nothing or cares nothing about politics can? It's an unfair generalization, for not all people "mature" at the same rate. It is wrong to make a blanket statement about a group of people who have nothing more in common than a date of birth. Plenty of people past the "age of majority" have far less maturity, knowledge, common sense, or life experience than the "typical" teenager. As far as "protecting"? There is no "protection" an age restriction provides that cannot be provided in a non-age based way. And what laws of protection are you referring to? Adults have protection laws. Protection from assault, murder, theft, etc. You don't have revoke HUMAN RIGHTS protections just to allow younger members of society and equal opportunity.
With the proliferation of educational alternatives such as homeschooling and online classes, the concept of public schools may seem increasingly less appealing as time goes by. The current method of public mass schooling was designed to create a homogenized work force suitable for the factory line production models prevalent in the early 1900s.* Perhaps our traditional way of looking at education and the number of years "necessary" should be re-evaluated.*
What rule do we use to protect 80 year old elderly ladies with bad eyesite? Again, most young people would still need their parents' advice and help. Hell, I needed my Dad to sign for me when I was 16 for my first car loan. It's not going to change that much. Changing age laws would not effect the decision of the loan officer (or instance)-- credit does. And I have yet to meet a real estate agent that would just sell a house to a 15 year old! ha ha...but, suppose that 15 year old had EXCELLENT CREDIT, A DRIVER'S LICENSE, LEGAL AUTONOMY and a super paying computer technician's job? Suppose that 15 year old was a celebrity? Should they get better treatment just because they are famous? They do. Is that fair?
i do agree with what you're saying here.The trick is to keep the old farts under control.Keep them from taking advantage of the ones that aren't as mature as the others.If laws could be individulized it would be one thing,but they can't at least with our present form of thinking.In the meantime keeping the wolves away from those still forming their view on life is the best answer.i'm all behind driving if you have the skills and i've always thought those who want to vote should and those who didn't shouldn't.Kids should have rights but they should also have the right to be kids.We used to have child labor.Dusk to dark working the factories.How many ten year olds want that right back?i would guess very few.You talk about the young socially aware.Now their the old socially aware.Been there seen that and have formed some well informed opinions.To not protect youths rights to be left alone we would be depriving them of that right.The right to form their own opinions without interferance.
need? i thought these kids had rights.Why would they need their parents help if they were able to do it on their own?If you're going to lean far into that dirrection there should be no limits.
Ha ha...so that's why they get duped more than any other age bracket? A younger person could have either or both. Again, they also have their parent's to help. You didn't read my entire answer, did ya? Exactly. Contracts deal mostly with an agreement of service or money. Most people could not offer contracts to those who had no way to guarantee either. And we have laws to protect those who are duped in specific situations regardless of age. AGAIN, the legal recognition of autonomy would be considered. Most teens would not leave their cush homes where Mom and Dad would take care of all their problems. You are under the impression that there would be some sort of mass exodus. But, that didn't happen EVEN AFTER SLAVES were freed in the Civil War. Most of them returned to their former "masters". How odd! Also, companies that issue credit cards and loans have every incentive to make sure that they are offered only to people who can responsibly use these services. In the absence of arbitrary age restrictions, they would surely take the same care in approving credit for young people as they do for adults.
I still need my Dad's advice from time to time because he is older and more experienced. And I am 31.
Child Labor? This isn't the 30's anymore...laws are now in place which protect all workers from the inhumane and dangerous conditions that existed in the sweatshops and factories of the past. If those laws were made to apply equally to all ages, they should serve to protect youth as well.
Yes, I agree. There are those as well. But, whose to say ANYONE wouldn't fall for that? Regardless of age? And again, without the L.R.A. it is invalid.
Older and more experienced?i thought that didn't apply.The way you're talking these are inherit qualities.
More protection laws.Taking away more of your so called right to be violated.Make up your mind.If you don't think these kids shouldn't be protected,then they should be subject to the full force of the market,like the rest of us.That includes long hours with minimum pay.Only if one has a special talent (actor,computor whiz)is this practical.
Don't act silly, man. Of course, an older person is more LIKELY to have experience and you should be able to DECIDE to take advice or not. Adults take advice everyday. From doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. There is nothing wrong with taking advice from someone who is likely more experienced in an area than you or I.
WTF are you talking about? We are ALREADY protected through legislation in the market. This has nothing to do with "child labor" and would be effective even IF this happened. My mind IS made up.
Well, that's your personal opinion. And I see that 80 year old elderly ladies are the main targets usually. And to assume that just because someone is old they are more knowledgeable of these situations defies the facts. And once more you are dismissing the legal autonomy I had mentioned.
