Rights For Adolescents
Windelkron
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
Join Date: 2002-04-11 Member: 419Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">No taxation without representation</div> A funny thing hit me the other day; I'm old enough to get a job, but I'm not old enough to vote.
And if I can get a job, that means I pay income tax.
But I can't vote.
Doesn't this fit under "taxation without representation?" And claiming that those 2+ years older can vote, well that's little more than "virtual representation," right? And am I also justified in saying that having to wait 2 years to be able to vote changes is a mockery of the democratic system?
Or am I just wrong?
And if I can get a job, that means I pay income tax.
But I can't vote.
Doesn't this fit under "taxation without representation?" And claiming that those 2+ years older can vote, well that's little more than "virtual representation," right? And am I also justified in saying that having to wait 2 years to be able to vote changes is a mockery of the democratic system?
Or am I just wrong?
Comments
And, that was just a statement/opinion of the day and age, never became a policy or law etcetera etcetera.
We have that in Finland, works pretty well and is a bit clearer than having many different age limits.
I think you ARE represented, you just have more 1 more link in the chain. Your legal guardians in theory are supposed to manage your affairs, part of which is done in the way they vote. "I'm voting for health insurance deductions for working class families," or "I'm voting against stripclubs because I want to be able to raise my family in a clean family neighborhood," are the kinds of things a parent might say that would reflect the way in which they are representing their child's interests.
So in a sense there ARE real human beings who speak out for your interests and how tax dollars should be spent for you, and it isn't a complete vacuum where money goes in, but nobody in any way lobbies for your cause, or is held accountable for your basic needs. You are "represented," not listened to directly, and that doesn't change when you turn 18.
Is that enough to satisfy you philosophically? Probably not! You are effectively a houseplant to be watered until you turn 18, in the eyes of the law. And then? Well... then you become a houseplant that has to water itself. Growing wings and flying around, controlling your destiny and getting respect, um, the longer I live the more I'm convinced I'm going to need to build a Death Ray to get those kinds of things. Voting is something I still do, but mostly just to say I did. You can vote for a person all you want, and write all kinds of letters and make big signs, but the real forces that steer the juggernauts of government are more difficult to determine (and control.)
One of the obstacles to such clear-cut laws here in the U.S., (and probably similar elsewhere), is the "layering" effect of federal, state, and local law.
For example, the Feds set a default condition for the entire nation: anyone can own a firearm that hasn't been banned, provided they meet certain basic conditions. Then the states can further discriminate: Texas is notoriously hands-off, California won't even allow you to own a pocketknife (sarcasm.) On top of that, each city can add their own two cents: New York and Chicago, for example, have CITY bans on handguns, that don't necessarily apply to the rest of the states they are in.
It's the same for smokes and alcohol I think. Drinking age is set by the states I believe, and probably tobacco too. (Anybody know?)
I was having a discussion with a friend the other day regarding the war on drugs here in the States. We were trading theories as to what exactly the purpose was behind the maze of laws regarding tobacco, alcohol, weed, etc, when to any adult with their eyes open the effect of enforcement is virtually nil. I have NEVER had ANY difficulty getting any of the above, and I'm not exactly what you'd call "connected." "Hermit" is more like it. Everyone knows somebody who has just enough to set you up for a weekend or a party. So why all the doors kicked down, and billions and billions spent?
It seems too easy just to say that the government is "dumb." They're not dumb. "They" are thousands and thousands of adults, with more data collected than they know what to do with. There's gotta be another reason.
What we finally agreed on, (perhaps not that original), was that it just has to be part of their need to have leverage on EVERYONE. Anyone who's been to court can see that the legal process as we know it is too tedious and slow to actually keep things together, so I think they try to maintain a broad spectrum of crimes so that everyone is guilty of something, so they can grab whoever they need without waiting two years for them to forget to signal before a turn.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, unless you consider common human laziness and sloppiness to be a conspiracy.
Firearms are illegal here too, I was just proposing how it could be done in US where every man has the right to carry a gun <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
But you can't get drunk, that would be wrong! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't remeber that when you turn 18 you can kill random people in the street. Might have to check on that.
Alto more people die from alcohol and tabacco then firearms.
But you can't get drunk, that would be wrong! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't remeber that when you turn 18 you can kill random people in the street. Might have to check on that.
Alto more people die from alcohol and tabacco then firearms. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least they kill themselves, not other people.
But you can't get drunk, that would be wrong! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't remeber that when you turn 18 you can kill random people in the street. Might have to check on that.
Alto more people die from alcohol and tabacco then firearms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At least they kill themselves, not other people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Drunk driving?
Perhaps you are not considering <a href='http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,1112,00.html' target='_blank'>17,380 deaths related to drunk driving?</a>. Not all of them were people driving into a tree. And tobacco stats are useless, but second-hand smoking has to cause more than its fair share of deaths every year to non-smokers.
The law in the US was changed from 18 to 21 when I was a kid. It was spurred mainly by the drunk driving fatalities caused by teen drinkers.
More <a href='http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,4565,00.html' target='_blank'>underage drinking stats here</a>.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If my high school gov't class serves me right, the drinking laws are technically set and enforced by the state. However, the feds are the real authority, because the feds "suggest" that the states set the age at 21 or the states will get some of their federal funds cut.
I'm just saying that being taxed and being able to vote ought to come at the same time.
That IS what representation is, for ALL of us. I think what you're objecting to is your lack of control in selecting the representative. That's understandable on an ideological level, but even after you start voting you often still feel like you're helpless, because either your representative didn't get elected, or didn't do what you wanted them to.
But I think I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. If they take your money, you should be able to have a say in where it goes. (I'm just being cynical and shrugging because I don't think that "say" ever really comes.) Being young is full of contradictions and feeling like you're getting screwed. I always felt that if I wasn't old enough to drink, then I wasn't old enough to shoot at people for my country (and be shot at.)
Adults restrict the rights of young people out of a noticeable difference in ability and reliability in general, but they often forget it is only a small matter of degree. Adults are just kids that are dying, and many of them are no more sophisticated than when they were 14 or 15 (when cognitive ability peaks.) Adults have a lot more power because their experience allows them to take drastic shortcuts on issues that are similar to previous instances, but they deal with new issues with about the same competence as a 15 yr old.
(Then he learned from MonsE that if you are a member of the US Armed forces, you can drink on base when you are 18 - back on topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> )
Look here, kids, another fine example of the LIES recruiters tell. Next I bet he'll offer to pay for college! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well, okay, so that defused my example of inconsistency. And it was too small of a sidebar to justify replacing the example with a valid one. For the record, when I was 18 my drinking was strictly regulated to off-base, and the government has always afforded me the right to smoke marijuana in the absence of enforcement.
Again, back to "Rock the Vote."
It gets back on topic or it gets the hose again!!!
You're slipping old man.
They CAN drink... aarggg...
Thats to freaking funny
Seriously though unless your an extremly mature adolecent when you get even a little older you will be like "What was I thinking?" I'm sure when I get older Ill look back at were I am now and go "WTH was I thinking?