There are restrictions on ALL people, but we are speaking of those based entirely on age. Secondly, who comes up with, administers, and licenses State tests for everyone? That should help answer that.
A younger person is just that...a younger person. Classes and a program to help one become ready to achieve STATE-RECOGNIZED autonomy. It's the same for most type of licensing or recognizing. No different. What if you're 23 and fail your driver's test? Hello? Same rules apply. What if you commit a crime and fail to post bond? What if you're 80 and get duped by an insurance salesman? What if the sun explodes? Crimes are crimes. Same for everyone. Neglecting and abusing a dog is illegal, neglecting and abusing an old person, a handicapped person, etc..etc.. It has NOTHING to do with age.
Anyone who wants to apply to be legally recognized as a taxpaying, responsible citizen and can show themselves capable. It's all about mentality, not age.
So if i put my 30 year old out of the house it's the same as telling my 5 year old to leave.Then if the 30 year old didn't pass the test i would have to support him?i could understand that if he was autistic but what if he's just lazy.What if the sun explodes?The odds are against it.All we have is history to go by.There is no evidence of the sun ever exploding.
take everybodies rights away in order to fix a comparitivly minor problem.How do you say it?Seig heil?
If a 30 year old couldn't pass for legal autonomy he is likely mentally-handicapped or fails purposefully (in which case he would suffer the consequences of his actions by liking having to go into State custody, if the parent's didn't want the responsibility). But, your situations would be no where near the norm. It's sort of ridiculous. If a 5 year old was put out (and could not pass for legal autonomy or didn't want to try), he/she is still legally under the responsibility of the parent, just as I am legally under the responsibility of my employer (for example). If a 5 year old was abused or neglected this way, the law would deal with those who committed the CRIME. Just as someone who is legally responsible for an 80 year old elderly person would be charged with the CRIME of neglect or abuse. They signed a legal document claiming responsibility and until the time that the document is declared null & void (when the 5 year old decides he/she wants to apply for legal autonomy), it is legally binding.
Hardly, Mr. Decider of whose "Subhuman". I take away NO ONE'S "rights". Everyone has human and Constitutional "RIGHTS". The rest are priviledges.
Good points. 80 year olds are completly legal age for everything, but you cant toss one out on the street, without going to jail that is. Some 80 year olds work and take care of themselves, some lay in the bed and shit themselves. Being 80 doesnt make the difference.
State custody?Why because he's lazy?i guess freedom is a priviledge,not a right.The problem with priviledges is that someone has to dole them out.The same problem with your tests.How hard are they?Who writes them?Can they be rewritten to keep up with the times?Who decides the last three questions?Who decides who decides.Now you've torn down the old system with it's obvious flaws and brought in your new system with all it's obvious flaws.What good have you done?Now i gotta pass a fucking test.
All departments of licensing and legal recognition could have a section. It would include basic academics, basic law that every citizen should know, etc. No different than most tests for anything today. We start by allowing who ever wants to take it first, sign up. Where does the funding for illegal bloody wars come from?? This test would not be about creating or eliminating human or Constitutional rights, but certain priviledges allowed to persons capable. Just as prisoners have certain priviledges stripped away, those incapable (such as 80 year old blind grannies driving) would get certain priviledges stripped away to keep the rest of society at lower risk and get the help they need (eyeglasses?, driver's training?) or the recall of their driver's license. But NO ONE would lose human rights or Constitutional rights! No, the test would only be given as recently as a driver's test. This would help to determine if some people really needed personal care and would eliminate some dangers to all of us, as well as help stable society and get proper care for those who needed it. Regardless of age. It's not a "RIGHTS" test. It's a test to see if you are mentally capable of handling yourself.
Freedom is not sucking off someone. No. That is stripping away THEIR freedom. The State (law) doles them out (priviledges). Not too hard to comprehend. Yep, you have to pass several tests in your life. An SAT test. A driver's test. So, what's one more? And it has nothing to do with CONSTITUTIONAL OR HUMAN RIGHTS. This is not a "rights" test. It is a test to determine whether someone is mentally capable of handling themselves. Perfectly ethical and legal.
I said nothing about any "institution". And if you failed, you would have to be very ignorant (not yet ready and under the responsibility of a parent or guardian) or retarded. Most elderly people are in nursing homes. Do you think they are capable? Is this a violation of their rights? O' lover of liberty?
And the war in Iraq is costing HOW much? And the war on drugs? And pot smokers & statutory rapists are $30,000 PER YEAR, PER PRISONER in America. Wow! That's $82 a day... per prisoner and at, say, 1 million non-violent prisoners: That's $82,000,000 a day!! And what does it cost us to pay for the Driver's Test, Civil Service Exam?? You and "gate" are assuming that everything would run utopian smoothly. Of course, there would be flaws. As in anything, but it's would be a lot more humane than the current system. And well worth it.
Sorry you said state custody,not institution. Most elderly people are not in nursing homes.They are not usually placed there but make their own choice.That shows your ignorance,therefore once again you fail the test.
