Age rights- draw your lines

[KrazyHorse]

You know, Dan, in Canada there's no special age rquirement to be Prime Minister. I'm not even sure that you have to be 18, given the fact that the requirement that you be an MP/Senator (which does necessitate that you be of age) is customary, not a legal ruquirement.

Yet somehow we've managed to avoid having any 20 year olds as prime ministers.

As a matter of fact, the youngest prime minister we've ever had has been Joe Clark, who came in just before his 40 birthday (and left just after it, but that's another story)...

[Sava]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yet that argument implies that any law passed by a majority of representatives, and hence "supported by society", is perfectly alright, yet I know that you don't believe that.

There is a hierarchy of sorts. The Constitution protects certain rights. Hence, I believe a Democracy cannot take away rights prescribed to the people. However, there's nothing about the right of a minor to consume tobacco or alcohol in the Constitution.

The question then becomes one of where you draw the line? So, where?

Simple. The age of consent is where you draw the line. And I believe that to be age 18. Generally, society has determined that 18 is when people officially become an adult. I believe in your point that the government can't tell you who to sell to and not sell to, but only if we're talking about two consenting adults. The issue at hand is with a consenting adult in a business selling to a minor... not able to consent. A sale of certain products or services is like a legal contract. And only two consenting adults can enter legal contracts.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS


I was talking the voting age. Were you talking president?

Acutal property ownership and taxpaying are the triggers for voting age, as far as I'm concerned. Anything other than that and the young adults are just cashing checks that others are writing.

So you would take away the right of 18 year-olds to vote?

Interesting, and more repugnant...

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS
Acutal property ownership and taxpaying are the triggers for voting age, as far as I'm concerned. Anything other than that and the young adults are just cashing checks that others are writing.

should young adults then be exempt from sales taxes?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

England didn't even get the words "age of consent" written into legislation until 2003. As it stands, it is a criminal offense for two young people to have sex with each other. The prosecutors can decide whether or not to prosecute based on various poorly defined circumstances. So strictly speaking there is an age (13 in the UK) before which there are no legal rights to any sexual activity. I was suggesting that in such a situation, the right to a private abortion should not be extended to those younger than that age. I chose 14.

I was completely unaware of this. Seems sort of ridiculous. You can prosecute two 13 year-olds for ****ing?

[Immortal Wombat]

Technically you can prosecute the boy. Unless there's some sort of coercion going on, it won't happen.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd also like to point out that there is one notable exception to DanS' idea that 18 year-olds are less invested in the actions of their government.

It's 3 letters long, begins with a W and ends with an R....

[DanS]

So you would take away the right of 18 year-olds to vote?

In our current society structure, yes.

Interesting, and more repugnant...

Meh. We need to make sure that those invested in society are calling the shots with regard to their tax dollars and how their long-term interests are being impacted by government policy.

It's 3 letters long, begins with a W and ends with an R....

Not so much the case nowadays, with a professional army.

[Sava]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I'd also like to point out that there is one notable exception to DanS' idea that 18 year-olds are less invested in the actions of their government.

It's 3 letters long, begins with a W and ends with an R....

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Technically you can prosecute the boy. Unless there's some sort of coercion going on, it won't happen.

I suppose girls are little angels then.



EDIT: not to you, but to England (or the UK; I have no idea what level this sort of law is handled at).

[Sirotnikov]

Re: Age rights- draw your lines

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Here they go!

1- Leave full-time education.

18

2- Drive a car.

17

3- Drive a heavy goods vehicle or bus.

25

4- Work a 12-hour shift down a coal mine.

22
i'd shorten the shift though.

5- Have sex.

peers - 15
all ages - 19

6- Buy porn.

15

7- Appear in porn in an obvious state of physical arousal.

19

8- Get married.

21

9- See front-line service in the army.

draft - 19
front line - 20

10- Own a 12-bore shotgun.

mmm... if at all - 25

11- Vote.

18

12- Become President.

32

13- Have a credit card, personal loan or mortgage.

18

14- Adopt children.

26

15- Gamble.

21

16- Get executed.

21

17- Buy a pet. Like a Pit Bull or a Python, or something.

19

added:

buy alcohol

17

buy tobaco

17 (though i'd pursue making it heavily taxed)

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS
Meh. We need to make sure that those invested in society are calling the shots with regard to their tax dollars and how their long-term interests are being impacted by government policy.

translation... the rich and corporations should run things?

I guess someone doesn't believe in the phrase "all men were created equal". Though I apologize if I am mischaracterizing you DanS... but that's what I'm taking away from your statements.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS

Not so much the case nowadays, with a professional army.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/articles.asp?id=28386

[DanS]

translation... the rich and corporations should run things?

Something like 70-80% of people own their houses nowadays. Those are the kind of people who should be calling the shots, because they will be less inclined to harm their own long-term interests.

[KrazyHorse]

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the average age of casualties today is lower than it was in WWII or WWI...