libertarianism and age restrictions

I'm a Libertarian, and personally, I'm more with ASFAR on these things.

 

This is a good example of the type of ignorance non-libertarians (and many self-professed libertarians) have about libertarianism. "Unrestrained pursuit of self interest in order to maximum freedom" is hedonistic anarchy, and is as far removed from libertarianism as it is from communism. Unfortunately, the (capital "L") Libertarian Party does seem to attract a large number of anarchists, isolationists, and luddites, who think their beliefs are libertarian. They're not. (This is one reason I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, though I am a libertarian.)

ArtusRegister writes,

The question "what about the children?" in its various forms has long been used as an excuse for more government, and less freedom. Libertarianism is often attacked for its alleged philosophy of treating children like adults. Less often is statism attacked for its insistence on treating adults like children.​

The reason "Libertarianism is often attacked for its alleged philosophy of treating children like adults" is that many self-professed libertarians claim their opinions on laws regarding children are based on libertarianism, when they're not. Libertarians should concentrate more on the subject matter of the second half of ArtusRegister's maxim: the treatment of adults. True libertarianism concerns the relationship between government and its adult citizens (or adult residents). Accordingly, true libertarianism is not applicable to laws concerning beings that are not adults under the law, e.g., children, animals, plants, the unborn, etc.

This is a major obstacle the Libertarian Party, and politicians running as Libertarians (or libertarians), face: libertarian philosophy does not in itself give answers to many societal issues that politicians must deal with. I believe the Libertarian Party does itself (and certainly does libertarianism) no service when it includes in its national platform stands on such issues as abortion, for which libertarianism provides no clear answer, without acknowledging that they're not actually based on libertarian principles. The abortion issue, for instance, falls within that class of issue that Abraham Lincoln observed is the only one in which morality must be legislated: in deciding what classes of being are to receive the rights, responsibilities, and protections its citizens enjoy under the law. Whether an unborn child is to be considered a person under the law is one such issue, and libertarianism by itself provides no solution.

The treatment of children--whether and when what happens to them is controlled by the state, by their parents, or by the children themselves--is another such area where libertarianism does not by itself provide a solution. So, "Aristartle," don't make assumptions about libertarianism based on what libertarians say about what laws regarding children should be, or on your own uninformed assumptions of what libertarianism is or what all libertarians think.
_______________________________

 

I didn't make an assumption.

 

Good response! I agree!

 

I think that the libertarian concept is dependent on people making rational decisions regarding their own welfare. Obviously, not all people are capable of rational decision making, whether from lack of life experience, degeneration from age, or other genetic, environmental, or acquired defect.

The constitution's definition of a citizen is clear and includes all those born or naturalized. The constitution also protects "any US person". Which if thought logically, includes unborn children, and any resident not yet naturalized, yet this classification is not clearly defined. Obviously, a criminal can be charged with double murder for killing a pregnant woman in violation of the 5th amendment's "no person shall be deprived... of life... without due process of law, so why can't an abortionist be charged under the same rule for killing without due process. Obviously, abortion could then be legal with appropriate due process carried about on an individual basis.

Now, what of citizens? My 5 year old is a citizen, but he has not the right to drive, marry, vote, purchase alcohol or tobacco, serve in the armed forces, and a multitude of other things that a citizen may do. These restrictions are based upon arbitrary definitions of "adult" based on various ages whether 14, 16, 18, 21, or whatever.

I think that there should be another category. Call it "Full Enfranchisement" as a step above the citizen and be independent of age, but rather based on circumstances. In order to vote, engage in any kind of legal contract, purchase controlled substances, etc, a person must demostrate the capability of mental and physical independence. You must not claim dependence on any entity other than yourself for funds. No one on welfare would qualify, nor would 40 year old children living with their parents. You must accept full responsibility for your own actions and if you don't you lose your enfranchisment. This would eliminate from enfranchisement those people who cast blame and file frivolous lawsuits like the woman who won $1 million from McDonald's for spilling hot coffee in her own lap, and anyone who gets public assistance for something they did to themselves like the smoker getting public healthcare for emphasema. Conviction of a crime which adversely affects any "person's" (in need of definition: see above) life, liberty, or property would also be cause for loss of enfranchisement. In this way, thieves, murderers, and kidnappers, assaulters, fraudsters, deficit spenders, etc would lose their "enfranchised" rights.

Such people who are fully enfranchised would suffer no restrictions on their actions regardless of their age. Thus, if my 5 year old is a savant who has started his own profitable business, or has demonstrated the ability to understand the consequences of his own actions, that he may enter any contract he chooses, including employment, suffrage, and whatever else. There may best be different demonstrated responsibility requirements for different rights. There is no freedom without the corresponding responsibility. For those not mentally ready to accept responsibility, no freedom. For those willing and able to accept responsibility, no limits.

Just an idea. Any thoughts?

 

Consciousness Libertarianism
I'm a consciousness libertarian - which means, I think anything that is conscious has a valid will. In other words, when you are conscious, you exercise desires clearly and with straightforward direction - that is the definition I am using here. In order for me to assume, as a libertarian, that you have wishes you must show a sign of consciousness - being unawares of your own wishes and wants invalidates your wishes as they are not accessible, and thus are unable to be administrated both by you and others.

Babies, even the youngest, can show signs of a certain degree of consciousness - usually they can only discern wishes of the lower level dealing with survival (or the self). Then they hit the stage, rather quickly, of awareness of other things beyond the self, such as location and whatnot, and they start to want to explore, which is expressed through desires known as curiosity or curiosities. In the very early stages of a fetus, and especially at conception, their is no consciousness; therefore, wishes, wills, and whims cannot be validated at that point - especially in the legal sense of the word "validated."

Anyway, so, at the time of infancy, we work to cultivate the child to be able to access, express, and advance his wishes and their complexities - therefore, a parent's duty, to which he legally submits to after birth, is to cultivate the infant until his wishes are easily accessible and able to be administrated.

In the fetal stage, not only is the baby unconscious, but is only an extension of it's mother due to the fact that it has no wishes, simply a function, other than that of its mother (therefore, abortion, to a certain point, is legal in my libertarian government).

Linguistic Libertarianism
I would say a baby makes his wills and wishes and whims much more accessible with their ability to communicate through a colloquial/formal language known and/or understandable (if not known, it must be understandable denotatively by the public, and if not understandable, it must at least be known). Therefore, I see language as one of the basic indicators of having a will, and not only that, but also as an avenue into legal protection of an individual's rights by the government (which would be equivalent to the parent's rights - in other words, the child would be allowed to vote, and do anything that adults are also legally allowed to do).

Summary of the Aforementioned
So, that means, consciousness makes desires able to be administrated and acknowledged by the person having the consciousness. Consciousness is thus the start of the duty of the person's parents to cultivate the infant in order for them to develop a way to make these wishes more accessible and, as a learning stage, should be taken advantage of to nurture the child in a way that protects his/her survival and lets him/her develop healthily.

Language, a colloquial/formal language known and/or understood, is so important as to be necessary in order for a libertarian government to protect the rights of people by being able to access, or recognize, the wishes and desires of a person at a certain moment or situation. Not being able to be accessed because of a lack of a known and/or understood language, makes it so that the libertarian Court is un-able to judge the case. Therefore, before this accessibility is made, the libertarian government would not be protecting any rights - therefore, most infants in the praxis would not have legal rights (or natural rights recognized by the legal system) under a libertarian rule.


In summary, because of the aforementioned, I believe that age restrictions...
are completely unnecessary, and fails to protect the rights of minority groups within the age assigned for restriction. If the person: 1) has desires that are not accessible, and/or (2) is unconscious, then the libertarian government is not able to protect the rights of that person (however, in the case of a person in a coma, if the desires are accessible through a past and/or saved account [a document documenting the way one wishes to be treated in such future situations], then no treatment can fall contrary to that will accessed). Those who are in the situation are bound to those which own them (yes, in such a situation, since the person no longer has a recognized self, then it is possible for that individual to be an extension of someone else's desires, id est property).

A parent's legal and ethical duty is to protect the child's survival and nurture the child to make his wishes accessible - once this happens, no matter what the age, the child's rights are completely protected by the libertarian government and are equivalent to the rights of adults. They can enter contracts freely as much as adults. But this also entails that if he decides to remain in the binding between him and his parents that was automatic since birth, and to use the property of his parents, he is to remain under the contract [if the contract entails having to go to school, you have to do that under the contract which was consensual between you and your parents], and he is to use the property in a certain manner with consent from the parents (hence why age restrictions are unnecessary since they can be set down through a consensual contract). However, the child can sign out of the contract as well, just as his parents can sign out of contracts binding themselves to the service of a company or obedience to it.

They also fail to protect the rights of minorities that are "ready" and "competent" for X, as they claim to "protect" minors because they are "un-ready" and "incompetent," though both really have the same rights, and I doubt anyone in a consensual relationship (whether sexual, business-oriented, teacher-to-pupil, etcetera) isn't "ready" for it, or "competent" enough, regardless of age. And if they aren't, they'll either regret it, or the relationship will fail. And acts like taking drugs - well, their fault; adults and children get on the same highs and gain the same consequences (besides the fact that drugs have a bigger developmental impact on younger people and is much more addictive for younger people as well - but by that logic, we still can't really have an age for drug restriction, since the older you get, the better, and numbers are basically infinite).

An age restriction is very arbitrary anyway - there's not some magical age-line that someone has to jump to suddenly go through divine revelations of knowledge and wisdom and maturity!

So I don't see what the problem is.

 

If you wrote that there's no way you're 13

But we do need some age restrictions, like smoking, that was a concious decision , but jesus what a bad one, why did I ever start smoking, I'm so glad i quit. But 9-10 year olds shouldn't be able to buy cigarettes, plenty of parents give their kids free money to spend by that age and being 10 kids would be like "oooo let's smoke cigarettes and be cool"

And drugs, I believe drugs should be legal and regulated, but a 9 year old should not have the option of walking into a CVS abd buying acid

 

Anarchist solution: Parent's responsibility, not the state's.

Libertarian solution: Leave the policy up to cities / towns / states to decide for themselves.

 

I think that's a horrible idea. Did you get it straight out of Starship Troopers? Disenfranchising all those below the poverty line is not only one of the most inhumane suggestions I've ever heard, it virtually guarantees that they will never have the power to improve their lives because they have no chance to participate in the government without doing so. It's a catch-22. As for that woman suing McDonald's, it is not as frivolous and people make it out to be. McDonald's use a way of heating their coffee called super heating, and they are supposed to allow it to cool to a reasonable temperature before giving it to the customer. They failed to do this.

 

Wow. That post is amazing. You definaltely answered the question nicely. I didn't have many political views before but I think I do now You rule!

 

this has nothing to do with libertarianism! It is about moral...especially when it comes to 13 year old prostitutes!

 

I wonder if you could simplify it by just allowing taxpayers to vote. This is the fairest system, but you could never implement it, because the pensioners would never go for it

Ideally, votes would be weighted; the more you contribute to the government's budget, the greater your say in how it is spent. This would also help government to stay small, since the larger the contributor, the more incentive he has to reduce the tax burden.

 

Why do people keep bringing up 13 year old prostitutes.
Are there 13 year old prostitutes? YES
Has there been, and always will be, 13 year olds and younger prostituting themselves? YES.
So what is the problem. It's one thing if some 13 year old is doing someone for fun, and maybe profit. It is quiet another if you force them to be a prostitute. Which is the case 99% of the time.