The creeping influence of OzzyKP continues to spread...

[Flip McWho]

Natures only distinction between childhood and adulthood is probably around the development of the body. Peoples bodies are considered fully grown somewhere around 20 as far as biology is concerned. Mentally fully grown is a totally different matter and somewhat depends on your definition of it.

Actually for all those here spouting the word maturity. What does it mean to be mature exactly?

[Flip McWho]

Also the whole thing about apathy in regards to voting isn't much of an argument against letting younger people vote. Who actually cares if people don't turn out and vote. Voter apathy isn't a reason to not let people younger vote. Otherwise you could argue upwards. Eg voter apathy is high in regards to the 18-30yr bracket so we shouldn't let them vote.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho


Umm bull****. In a lot of societies way back when adulthood was considered around 13. Teenage years weren't really invented untill after WWII.

Childhood is a Victorian invention. That does not mean 13 year olds EVER got the right to vote. Adulthood and voting are NOT THE SAME THING. MOst adults throuigh history in most democracies did not have the right to vote either.

A lot of the distinction between adult and child now is a social construct. Started at first like how GePap says by extending the voting age to 18yr olds so the govt can get younger soldiers off to war. Now that soldiering and war doesn't matter so much this line of reasoning is kinda obsolete. So we need to look at whether 18 is still the best age. Things change over time and maybe its time we gave the younger people more of a say.

NO, I said that the voting age in the US got moved down because most people felt it was wrong for the govenment to have the right to compel military duty on a gorup of people denied the right to vote on whether the polity should be at war. The state can at any time start compalling people of any age to join the military if it is so needed.

I don't see a problem with 16yr old soldiers. I see a problem with 16yr olds being conscripted into the armed forces but I've got nothing against 16yr olds choosing to enter the armed forces. It seems fairly arbitrary when a 16 yr old can choose to get married and/or have kids and carry the responsibilities there yet they aren't considered mature enough to decide whether they are ready to go off to a possible war and die for their country.

Law allowing for 16 year olds to marry are old, leftovers like laws where you can;t wear a hat inside in some locations. Society frowns heavily upon 16 year olds having kids. Societies in general does not allow 16 year olds to join the military, and in the modern age very few people that age did join militaries, unless states were desperate for manpower and running dry.

THe view that 18 is a good age is very widespread, and has good reasons.

[Flip McWho]

Childhood is a Victorian invention. That does not mean 13 year olds EVER got the right to vote. Adulthood and voting are NOT THE SAME THING. MOst adults throuigh history in most democracies did not have the right to vote either.

That wasn't at you, that was at the guy who mentioned something bout natures distinction at 18ish.

NO, I said that the voting age in the US got moved down because most people felt it was wrong for the govenment to have the right to compel military duty on a gorup of people denied the right to vote on whether the polity should be at war. The state can at any time start compalling people of any age to join the military if it is so needed.

Well if the state can compel people of any age to join the military if needed then isn't it an injustice that they are denying the vote to a part of that any age group the right to decide whether the polity goes to war.

Law allowing for 16 year olds to marry are old, leftovers like laws where you can;t wear a hat inside in some locations. Society frowns heavily upon 16 year olds having kids. Societies in general does not allow 16 year olds to join the military, and in the modern age very few people that age did join militaries, unless states were desperate for manpower and running dry.

Society frowns on a lot of things. Who really cares?

THe view that 18 is a good age is very widespread, and has good reasons.

Such as?

The view that those under 21 shouldn't vote was very widespread. The view that blacks shouldn't vote was once very widespread. The view that women shouldn't vote was once very widespread. The view that all the people shouldn't vote was once very widespread.

They're all just views. They change.

[OzzyKP]

On the matter of military service, if you join the military at 18 and vote at 18, don't you think its a little bit late at that point to vote on the matter?

For example, the invasion of Iraq was in early 2003. What good would it have done someone who turned 18 that year, there was no election. The individual who decided to go to war in Iraq was elected in 2000. Three years earlier.

Having the voting age lower than the age for military service makes sense because they need to participate in potential decisions on war BEFORE they are in the trenches getting shot at.

I think it is a crime that individuals who in a year or two will make up the bulk of our armed forces are not allowed to vote, but senior citizens who have no fear whatsoever of ever being put in harms way by a war get to decide the matter.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
On the matter of military service, if you join the military at 18 and vote at 18, don't you think its a little bit late at that point to vote on the matter?

For example, the invasion of Iraq was in early 2003. What good would it have done someone who turned 18 that year, there was no election. The individual who decided to go to war in Iraq was elected in 2000. Three years earlier.

Having the voting age lower than the age for military service makes sense because they need to participate in potential decisions on war BEFORE they are in the trenches getting shot at.

I think it is a crime that individuals who in a year or two will make up the bulk of our armed forces are not allowed to vote, but senior citizens who have no fear whatsoever of ever being put in harms way by a war get to decide the matter.

I don't feel strongly about this issue overall, but this particular point is bullsh*t.

The armed forces are not made up of 18-year-olds. I guarantee that the vast majority of soldiers who've done one (or two, or three) tours of duty in Iraq right now were old enough to vote in 2000...and probably voted for Bush. (In 2004 -- the last year for which I could find figures -- soldiers under the age of 20 comprised less than 10% of the U.S. military; also, according to CNN, 71% of the U.S. deaths in Iraq were over the age of 22)

Nor am I going to shed any tears for the 18-year-old who voluntarily (key word) joined the military during the Bush administration and now finds himself in the middle of a war he doesn't like. With judgment like that, I'm frankly grateful he doesn't have a greater impact on the political process.

[notyoueither]

His point holds some water especially given that selective service is still active, just not being used.

If and when the draft resumed, it would be 18 yearolds who would be called up.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by notyoueither
His point holds some water especially given that selective service is still active, just not being used.

If and when the draft resumed, it would be 18 yearolds who would be called up.

If the draft is resumed -- which is politically about as likely to happen as taking the vote away from women again -- 18-26 year olds will be called up. If the draft is ever resumed, they'll be called up by a bunch of old folks in Congress who aren't at all worried about that sliver of a demographic, compared to their obligation to the military -industrial complex. Imagining that the mighty 16-18-year-old vote might change that is absurd.

It's also a goofy slippery slope. 16-year-old can drive, but have no control over the traffic laws that govern them. Clearly 14-year-olds must vote! But 14-year-olds will enter high schools whose standards have been set at a national level, without their consent. Clearly, 12-year-olds must vote!

And so on, until we can't justify settling the abortion question until fetuses get their say.

The argument that everyone effected by the actions of the State should have a say in the actions of the State is, at bottom, unworkable. You have to draw a line somewhere. I'm not against drawing it at 16 instead of 18, but I have yet to hear a valid argument for doing so.

But, as I said, I'm agnostic on this issue. So I'll tell you what: let's try this. The U.S. lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in 1971. Can anyone point to any way in which that has made a difference in the lives of 18-21 year olds in the last 35 years? (And no, the end of the draft doesn't count; that would have happened anyway). I can think of at least two profound ways in which the government made their lives worse (the drinking age went up to 21, and student aid shrunk). But if you can show me that giving 18-21 year olds the right to vote actually made a positive difference for them, I might become a believer.

[Apocalypse]

One could also argue that adding only the 18-21 age range showed that their vote wasn't enough to be cared about, that the government could just get away with raising the drinking age and taking away student aid.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Well if the state can compel people of any age to join the military if needed then isn't it an injustice that they are denying the vote to a part of that any age group the right to decide whether the polity goes to war.

The fact that the state can compel anyone to go to war is based on the fact that the primary duty of the state is defense, so if for some reason it needs teenagers as cannon fodder to survive, it will use them. But that is just an emergency measure, such as the cancellation of Habeas Corpus or Martial Law.

It is also true that the state can at any point put the military in the streets and declare Martial Law. That fact does not mean our laws for everyday issues should be shaped around the possibility of martial law.

Society frowns on a lot of things. Who really cares?

The voters who make the rules, that's who. After all, changing the voting age would be something that society, as embodies by the voters, would have to decide. So, it matters quite a lot.

Such as?

The view that those under 21 shouldn't vote was very widespread. The view that blacks shouldn't vote was once very widespread. The view that women shouldn't vote was once very widespread. The view that all the people shouldn't vote was once very widespread.

They're all just views. They change.

I have already stated that the comparisons to the situation of women and racial and ethnic minorities are absurd, bordering on outrageous. I whish people would stop making that comparison.

As for compelling reasons:

At the minimum, the jury is still out as far as saying that your average 16 year old has the mental, physical, and emotional capabilities to fully carry out the duties of citizenship, and voting is the most important right of citizenship.

Society also has acompelling interest in educating its younger members, and in giving them the space to develop free of the full consequences of the everyday world. That also means not being granted the full rights either.

[GePap]

Originally posted by notyoueither
His point holds some water especially given that selective service is still active, just not being used.

If and when the draft resumed, it would be 18 yearolds who would be called up.

If it comes back, it would be lottery of young men probably under 25. Your average 18 year old would have the same chance of getitng called in as a 23 year old.

Plus there is the question of whether individuals in colleges and universities would be exempt or not.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
On the matter of military service, if you join the military at 18 and vote at 18, don't you think its a little bit late at that point to vote on the matter?

For example, the invasion of Iraq was in early 2003. What good would it have done someone who turned 18 that year, there was no election. The individual who decided to go to war in Iraq was elected in 2000. Three years earlier.

Irrelevant, as no one foresaw the line of events that would lead to war soon after.

This is a red herring overall. More important than deciding beforehand (no one knows just how a war might begin) is being able to have a say once its ongoing, to stop it if people begin to think its not worth it.

I think it is a crime that individuals who in a year or two will make up the bulk of our armed forces are not allowed to vote, but senior citizens who have no fear whatsoever of ever being put in harms way by a war get to decide the matter.

The US military is voluntary. If those kids chose to serve, they should know beforehand the consequences of their choice, including being sent to fight somewhere else.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
I don't see a problem with 16yr old soldiers. I see a problem with 16yr olds being conscripted into the armed forces but I've got nothing against 16yr olds choosing to enter the armed forces. It seems fairly arbitrary when a 16 yr old can choose to get married and/or have kids and carry the responsibilities there yet they aren't considered mature enough to decide whether they are ready to go off to a possible war and die for their country.

So why 16? Why not 14? Why not 12?

I haven't seen a good argument showing that why 16 is a better cut off point than 18 and why this gradual lowering should not continue.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


So why 16? Why not 14? Why not 12?

I haven't seen a good argument showing that why 16 is a better cut off point than 18 and why this gradual lowering should not continue.

The younger they are, the better push up score they could probably get on the pt test

[Kidlicious]

I would actually support lowering the voting age to 16, since a lot of 16 year olds work, and are therefore taxed on their work, but that's where I would draw the line.