Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

Bollocks. Through most of human history, we were getting jobs and getting marries and crap well before the age of 18.

 

That's because you haven't rebutted it yet.

Obviously, this is not my argument. My argument is that mental competence doesn't go on and off like a light switch on the stroke of midnight on everyone's 18th birthday.

Where are the studies showing that mental competence goes on and off like a light switch on the stroke of midnight on everyone's 18th birthday?

 

no one is claiming that it does, isnt' that what they call a "Straw man" arguement?

 

As I said before, one-size-fits-all, magic-number speed limits are bad law, as well. Rather, demonstrably reckless driving should be penalized, regardless of whether it's at 50 or 60 miles an hour. Beware of any law that includes a magic number because such a law must be arbitrary and arbitrary laws are unjust.

You're defending something you admitted to be unfair. That's the problem here.

A marketable skill is a skill that someone is willing to pay you for. And even the most menial jobs can provide work experience and credentials to help one achieve higher paying jobs as time goes on. And plenty of under-18-year-olds have advanced skills. There have been under-18 actors, musicians, entrepreneurs, authors, artists, scientists, and ship captains.

I really shouldn't have to. The principles of justice ought to be enough to sway you, if you're a person who believes in justice. Nonetheless, it is already legally possible for minors to be emancipated and some who seek it (here's one). The problem is the law has a different standard based on a magic number. It shouldn't. Everyone should be treated equally under the law.

Forcing mentally competent people to remain under the authority of possibly abusive guardians is more dangerous to them than emancipating them. It's dangerous to be under the power and control of someone else. They only do it with mentally incompetent people because it's absolutely necessary. Why would you think it safer to do it to mentally competent people?

How do you think a stateless society could hold to a one-size-fits-all standard imposed by a legislature. Obviously, it couldn't. Obviously, it could only judge everyone on a case-by-case basis.

Questions of competency only becomes relevant after a legal dispute is brought to court. Then, if it is relevant, some party may be analyzed and judged incompetent as regards the issue in question (competency depends on what the specific matter is; someone may be competent to have responsibility for one thing but not another). Again, this is already how it is done for everyone over 18, millions of whom are mentally disabled.

 

Your previous post was little more than a strawman portrayal of my position. Look in a mirror.

Meanwhile, my characterization of the age of majority as suggesting that everyone automatically acquires competency on the stroke of midnight on their 18th birthday is quite accurate. That's precisely and exactly what it says.

 

I stopped reading this thread because I thought it had all been said.

First, setting an arbitrary age of consent, whether it be for sex or living arrangements or for doing business deals has no reflection on anybody's abilities nor mental competence. It does not mean that those under it are incompetent, nor does it mean that those that are over it are more competent.

It is an arbitrary line, drawn by the consensus of the population as to at what age, the person should have a minimum amount of experience and education, to make most decisions if that is what they so desire, with enough competence to be legally responsible for the outcome.

I am not sure of other countries, but in Australia in most cases, if the person can put forward a case as to why they should have certain rights before that age, and if it can be postulated that they will have as good a chance as anyone else, and that they are not putting themselves at undue risk, this can be granted by a court. I.E. Leaving home before you turn 15 etc. This does not include sex before the age of consent naturally, more like leaving an unstable home.

There are examples here of people leaving home at young ages and making a success of their lives, there are of course a lot more unfortunate cases of where they have destroyed their lives.

Why not driving licences, if they can reach the pedals let them drive, and the army, smaller targets and more likely to go into more dangerous places, mining, we won't need such big tunnels. Yeah right

 

The point is that "society" doesn't know that everyone under 18 is not competent. You admit it when you use the phrase "most of them." Possibly most of them (possibly not), but not all of them. You're stripping for the particular individuals that don't fall into the vague "most of them" category of their liberty to exercise their individual rights.

Who's to say what they have or haven't demonstrated unless and until it's adjudicated in a court of law? Normally, individuals are supposed to have a presumption of competence for the same reason they have a presumption of innocent: to prevent their freedom from being taken from them with warrant. You can't assume things based on what you think is most probably true. OJ is most probably guilty, but, unless it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court, legally, he's not guilty.

 

I don't believe in sex outside of marriage and I don't believe I'd want to marry someone very much older or younger than myself. Your endless pedophilia obsession is merely muddying the waters. What we're talking about is what's the best and most just and most accurate way for the law to judge whether or not someone is mentally competent to exercise his or her rights independently.

 

But the point is it's arbitrary, i.e. not based on reality. A standard based on reality would judge each person individually, according to the same standard, regardless of how old the air, and regardless of the reason, whether it's living alone, having sex, driving, joining armies, mining, or anything else.

Don't you think judging competence on a case-by-case basis would be more accurate and fair than some admittedly arbitrary broad-brush rule? Obviously, it would be. So your only possible argument is that you don't think it could work logistically.

But like I keep saying, there are millions and millions of mentally disabled adults walking around. Yet the law deals with those people without having any magic number at all. So why would it be so tricking to sort the mentally competent and mentally incompetent people who happen to be 17 years old the same we sort the mentally competent and mentally incompetent people who happen to be 18 years old??

 

You are right, 100%. I do not think anyone here says any different. What we are saying is yes, it is logistically and logically very resource wasteful.

 

Okay, fair enough. So even if I were, for the sake of argument, to give you that point, isn't the fair and successful provision of true justice more important than minimizing use of resources?

 

Definitely, but I do not think we should abolish minimum ages just because of it. I have never felt, and actually asking every one I know, no one I know feels that they were deprived of anything by age limits.

 

Doesn't your agreeing that logistics is less important than justice necessarily imply that the more just system should replace the more logistical one? You may have not have met anyway, but they exist, as shown by the existence of the youth rights movement.

 

Why are you judging people on the basis of averages, instead of as individuals? Everybody's different. With any average, about half of the people are above it and about half are below it; very, very few are exactly average.

And goodness only knows how you can presume to know objectively what the average of level of competency of any age or other group is.

A reasonable person knows that everybody is different and matures at different rates. Therefore, they should be judged as individuals, not as groups.

As I've said over and over again, I'm not suggesting that person that is not competent enough to consent to a sexual arrangement or any other contractual agreement should be legally allowed to do it. What I'm saying is that competence should be judged by on the basis of the individual's personal mental capacity to consent to whatever the agreement is, rather than in the basis of an arbitrary one-size-fits-all age line.

In other words, I want to replace the current arbitrary standard with a standard more concretely based on the individual's mental capacity for consent. Since the whole rationale for this is that some individual's lack the mental capacity to consent to certain things, isn't this a more accurate way of measuring it than just picking a number out of thin air??

Wouldn't it better protect people who lack the ability to consent to have the standard of the law actually based on the person's lack of ability to consent? I suspect it would better protect all the minors currently one the sex offender's registry for engaging in sexual activity with individuals slightly younger than themselves.

The last sentence is completely wrong. The younger person is always at a disadvantage? That's only true if you assume everyone is a clone that possesses an identical mental capacity at an identical age, which is absurd. Everyone's different. Everyone matures at different rates. Regardless of what the averages are, there are plenty of individual 12 year olds that are more cognitively advances than plenty of individual 15 year olds and plenty of individual 40 year olds, who are mentally disabled.

Why do you insist on judging people as groups, rather than as individuals? This is no different than assuming that because women are more nurturing than men in general (on average), every single woman is more nurturing than every single man.

 

I swear all these "give rights to kids" are like current or wish to be pedos trying to justify themselves.

 

it is not really that arbitrary.

if you look at development, in general you will find there are considerable changes that occur between the mid to late teens, so 18 is a pretty reasonable point to be regarded as the age of majority.

There may be some argument to say it should be older - I understand that risky behaviour significantly decreases in the early to mid twenties - but I think that for general decisionmaking, 18 is probably about right.

mentally disabled adults may have someone else appointed guardian, either a relative or other caretaker, or through the state. they may not have the right to dispose of their income as they wish, they may have part of their income paid directly into rent and other essential payments.

 

or people looking to exploit kids in other ways, like they did before child labor laws came into effect.

it's really sickening to see. People wanting to lower our standards to third world countries but it is pretty typical for Progressives..

and Orwellian, white is black and up is down...and now somehow the laws passed to PROTECT children are being accused of 'oppressing' them.

Absolute Volunteerist can't answer the simplest rebuttal. ANY child that feels 'oppressed' can petition the court to be emancipated. ANY. So his whole "WOOOEEE the children, oppressed and denied their human rights" is total bulls**t. The way the system is set up now works fine. If a child is not capable of petitioning the court, then obviously he (oops...SHE, Right AV?? *wink*) isn't capable of 'exercising his(HER) rights'.

this whole premise is stupid, we have presented specific situations and medical information, all HE has is his opinions.

 

whats a progressive?

the people who put children's rights on the table in the first place are progressives!

the majority of people who argue for children's right to be exploited seem to be libertarians as far as I can see!

 

LOL, quite so. I am constantly amazed how the English language has been turned upside down in the US. Exhibit A being 'I could care less'.

The terms liberal and progressive, in themselves both civilised and highly desirable characteristics, have been turned into abuse for ideological purposes. It is both the liberal and progressive mindsets which have been the engine for liberty and progress throughout history. No emancipation of women, slaves, or legal prevention of small children being sent down mines or up chimneys (did you know that the starting age for chimney sweeps was four?) would have been possible with out these views.

But to return to the subject at hand, I do not believe that the age of consent should be abolished. I also do not believe that those proposing this are potential paederasts - this is an unfair allegation.

I just happen to believe that children must have every protection available, and if a level of inconvenience attends the legislation, that is a small price to pay. Instances where teens of similar ages are involved, can be dealt with by means of progressive judges and courts.

Anyone who views prepubertal children as sexual objects has major problems, and is in need of counselling and treatment. Children must be protected from people so inclined.

 

I agree, it HAS been the liberals and the progressives that have driven human rights forward, which makes this even more bizarre to me. I simply don't understand how it can be a step FORWARD to remove the protections that the liberals have managed to get passed into law.

The laws put into place for children are there for a reason, not just for adult's fun so that adults can stick their tongues out and say "NAH NAH, I get to pay bills and go to work every day and have sex with whoever I want to!"...we already TRIED it AV's way, it led to atrocious abuse; why he wants to go back to four year olds sweeping chimneys and call that giving the kid 'rights' is beyond me.

in fact, AV's (and the others here that post continually about kids and sex) entire attitude makes me feel like we have swerved off course straight off a cliff. I do not think this is where most Democrat Liberals intended us to be but this is where they have led us...whether thru design or not thinking things thru, I don't know.

 

Do you think that everyone matures at the same rate? Of course you don't that would be ridiculous. So having a one-size-fits-all age at which everyone is assumed to become mature--even if it just so happens to be the average point of maturity--will not apply to everybody or even to most people. It's more accurate to judge maturity on a case-by-case basis.

Right. Exactly. And they are judged to be mentally disabled on a case-by-case basis. And that's exactly how it should be done with everyone under 18, on a case-by-case basis.

 

These constant insinuations of sexual impropriety on my part are really poisoning the well here. How do we know you're not a pervert? Many perverts cover up their desires by putting on a big, loud pretense of hatred and disgust towards the very sin that secretly tempts them. See: Mark Foley.

I have only said over and over and over that I agree that people who are lack the mental capacity to consent to sex (or anything else) obviously are unable to consent to sex, and, therefore, having sexual relations with such people is aggressive. It is similar to entering into a legal contract with a person that lacks the mental capacity to agree to a legal contract; obviously, such a contract is void and the party that brokered it with the mentally incompetent person is guilty of fraud.

So I do NOT disagree with you or anyone else arguing with me that mentally incompetent people should have guardians and should have legal protections from being coerced/manipulated/defrauded into activities they are psychologically unable to consent to. If you do not realize this yet, it is because you are too busy flying off the handle to really consider what I'm saying.

My only disagreement is how the mental competence of individuals is most accurately judged under the law. Just as it is aggressive to allow mentally incompetent people to engage in activities they are not able to consent to, it is also aggressive to prohibit mentally competent people from engaging in activities they are able to consent to. Correct? So it is important to accurately distinguish the mentally incompetent from the mentally competent.

And despite your assertion to the contrary, the current system does not achieve for individuals under 18. They are not all children, in the sense that they are mentally incompetent to engage in various. Some--possibly even most--may be, but all are not. My only point (not a very difficult one) is that those particular under-18-year-olds that are mentally competent should be considered mentally competent under the law. That's not such a mind-blowing idea, is it?

True, a few can, by jumping through certain legal hoops become legally emancipated. But that is up to a judge and it is not wholly based on mental competence, but on the judge's idea of what's in the minor's "best interest," which is not the same thing. The standard of legal competence should be, as I've said before, the same for everybody.

All people over 18 have (or should have, though sometimes the law's a little weak even for them) a presumption of competence (well, except to drink alcohol ), just as they have a presumption of innocence. Their mental capacity only becomes a question of legal relevance when there is a legal dispute that ends up in court, for example, whether or not some legal contract is valid. If the adult's competence is called into a question, the party disputing it must show this to the satisfaction of the court. Then the court legally declares them not competent in this matter. That's the way it should be and that's the way it is, for most people.

I fail to see any reason why this same standard and method can't apply to people under the age of 18, as well. It would not mean "open season on the children by perverts" or any other ridiculous over-the-top vision. Nor would it mean that judges have to give a test to every child every month until they pass it or something like that. Children would still live with their parents and be cared for and protected by their parents. In our current society, the law doesn't usually have to force this arrangement on either side. The vast majority of parents want to protect their children and the vast majority of children want to be protected by their parents. This arrangement generally continues until both the parents and child agree to end this dependent relationship by the child leaving home, usually sometime after 18 these days. The courts never enter the picture.

The courts would only enter the picture when there's a legal dispute over it. For example, if a 16 year old wanted to leave home and the parents didn't want him to or if a 17 year old had taken out a loan and later claim he wasn't mentally capable of doing so. Then the matter would go to court and the court would evaluate the matter, just as it does with everyone from age 18 to 118, on the same basis and using the same standards.

 

no - but the research on development has long established that there are certain developmental stages we go through, and modern laws do take this into account.

yes there may be a "marjin of error", but to not draw a line would create a huge burden on the legal system - and for some young people who are not really that mature, may create situations where they are disadvantaged.

there is less disadvantage to being protected for a few months longer than you might otherwise be.

WRT those with mental impairments.

as assessment to classify a person as not being mentally competent is done in cases where there is a clear possibility that this is the case. to do this assessemtn on every teenager who reaches - lets say 17 - to see if they can be classified as adult would require a considerable amount of resources, and would require regular review processes until the young person could be regarded as adult ...

lols ... it might even be possible that it would cause delays for many - if you are a young person - be carfeul what you wish for!

 

So we are just debating logistics. You admit that judging on a case-by-case basis would be more accurate than "drawing a line in the sand," but you say that the legal system couldn't handle it, would be too time consuming, etc.

I refer you to my previous post to injest, where I state that this system would not require every 17 year old to go to court to be classified, anymore than the current system for dealing with mentally disabled adults requires every 18 year old to be classified. I say:

I fail to see any reason why this same standard and method can't apply to people under the age of 18, as well. It would not mean "open season on the children by perverts" or any other ridiculous over-the-top vision. Nor would it mean that judges have to give a test to every child every month until they pass it or something like that. Children would still live with their parents and be cared for and protected by their parents. In our current society, the law doesn't usually have to force this arrangement on either side. The vast majority of parents want to protect their children and the vast majority of children want to be protected by their parents. This arrangement generally continues until both the parents and child agree to end this dependent relationship by the child leaving home, usually sometime after 18 these days. The courts never enter the picture.

The courts would only enter the picture when there's a legal dispute over it. For example, if a 16 year old wanted to leave home and the parents didn't want him to or if a 17 year old had taken out a loan and later claim he wasn't mentally capable of doing so. Then the matter would go to court and the court would evaluate the matter, just as it does with everyone from age 18 to 118, on the same basis and using the same standards.

 

and under this scenario there are risks of grave injustices being done to children, because there are those who will take advantage of the law to exploit children, and then blame them for being victims because - after all - they MAY BE classified as adult.