Thread: Being under 18 shouldn't make you a slave

Originally Posted by perdidochas

I don't, but the government and society does.

Society isn't a sentient being. It has no rights. It's only individual people making choices.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

Society isn't a sentient being. It has no rights. It's only individual people making choices.

Ok, then a large group of people choosing together have that right. Also read my expanded edit.

Look, I agree with you that most children aren't ready to go out on their own, but that's exactly why an age of majority isn't necessary!

C'mon, it's kind of silly to think a three year old would run away, it's common sense that children would stay with their parents and have to listen to them until they can become economically self suffient. All I'm saying is, since not everyone matures at the same rate, having a set age severely limits freedom.

If you're ready to do your own thing then you should be able to. If you want to rely on someone else, you have to follow their rules. As I said before, you don't need a law to enforce that, it just happens naturally.

Anyway, just because a large group of people think they can do something, it doesn't give them the right to. Lynch mobs had no right to kill black people, but they did anyway.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

In the US, we have an age of majority/consent of 18, under this and your human rights are severely limited.

No they're not. Children have most of the basic human rights plus a whole load of additional ones and many fewer responsibilities in return. It's not punishment, it's protection.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

You can't give people rights based on their age, everyone matures differently.

We can and do. Of course maturity varies but it still exists. Given that there is no simple way to judge maturity, simple cut-off ages are required. It's not perfect but it's much better than nothing.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

This wouldn't be taking away parents rights either

No, it would take away their responsibilities though.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

Not everyone wants to do that, people of any age should be able to go look for work, have sex, and make decisions like everybody else.

Any age, really? 12 year-old strippers OK in your utopia?

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

Before you go saying, well then a five year old is going to run away and work in a factory, use a little common sense.

There are five year olds in various parts of the world working in factories, mines and the like (with or without parental consent) in mjaor part because those countries don't have the protections you want to do away with.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

No they're not. Children have most of the basic human rights plus a whole load of additional ones and many fewer responsibilities in return. It's not punishment, it's protection.

We can and do. Of course maturity varies but it still exists. Given that there is no simple way to judge maturity, simple cut-off ages are required. It's not perfect but it's much better than nothing.

As I stated in a previous post, it isn't necessary. Kids that aren't economically self sufficient wouldn't be able to leave. Kids that are, would. No laws needed.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

No, it would take away their responsibilities though.

No it would not, a mother still has a responsibility for her child, and would still be charged with negligence if it's an infant. Parents give their child's up for adoption now and forfeit responsibility, this wouldn't change that.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

Any age, really? 12 year-old strippers OK in your utopia?

If it's consensual then yes, what makes sex worse than any other activity? I don't see sex as an evil, inappropriate thing.

Originally Posted by HonestJoe

There are five year olds in various parts of the world working in factories, mines and the like (with or without parental consent) in mjaor part because those countries don't have the protections you want to do away with.

That has to do with the poverty they live in, not parental protections.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

As I stated in a previous post, it isn't necessary. Kids that aren't economically self sufficient wouldn't be able to leave. Kids that are, would. No laws needed.

What about the kids who think they could be self-sufficient but are wrong (or fail by no fault of their own)? Would the state support them as it does adults or would they be expected to crawl back to their parents? Would the parents be obliged to take them back?

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

If it's consensual then yes, what makes sex worse than any other activity? I don't see sex as an evil, inappropriate thing.

I never said it was evil or inappropriate. What you are suggesting though is that an individual can give informed consent for anything fundamentally legal at any age. If you can see any problem with that concept, there is no helping you.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

That has to do with the poverty they live in, not parental protections.

Method, motive and opportunity. While extreme poverty increases the motive, lack of legal protections and the ease that young children can be threatened and manipulated is the method and opportunity. There is no reason to assume that there would be zero motive even in the US (in fact I'd be surprised if there aren't currently illegal child labour in the US already - you're just looking to legitimates the business).

I just think you're stirring up a whole load of potential problems for no practical benefit. You've not identified any actual problem you're looking to fit beyond a matter of high principal.

Firstly, you shouldn't have to get permission from someone else to have basic human rights.

Can you give me an example of a basic human right that children do not have?

Secondly, getting emancipated isn't easy and you need your parents permission.

LOL, no you dont. Thats the whole point of emancipation...you are removing your parents as your guardian against their will.

Where are you getting this from? You're just making sweeping generalizations about a population of people without anything to back it up.

The reason we can make sweeping generalizations is because every single adult, without exceptuion, used to belong to that "group" at one time. Not only do we all have experience being kids, we have MORE experience than any child, because we have already gone through all of it.

Look, I agree with you that most children aren't ready to go out on their own

What? How DARE you make sweeping generalizations about those children!Who are you to take away their rights and tell them what is best for them?

All I'm saying is, since not everyone matures at the same rate, having a set age severely limits freedom.

We cant make laws for the exceptions. You do have recourse if you really think you are more mature than most people your age. Thats what emancipation is for.

If you're ready to do your own thing then you should be able to.

Who should get the final say as to whether you are ready?

Should a three year old be allowed to go off on their own if they think they are ready? If not, why?

Anyway, just because a large group of people think they can do something, it doesn't give them the right to.

Why not? Thats kinda the point of democracy. You dont like democracy?

If it's consensual then yes, what makes sex worse than any other activity? I don't see sex as an evil, inappropriate thing.

Are you saying you think toddlers should be able to participate in sex if they want to? If not, why?

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

As I stated in a previous post, it isn't necessary. Kids that aren't economically self sufficient wouldn't be able to leave. Kids that are, would. No laws needed.

Define economically self sufficient. How will you judge that someone is economically self sufficient?

IMHO, it's easier to say 18, and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

No it would not, a mother still has a responsibility for her child, and would still be charged with negligence if it's an infant. Parents give their child's up for adoption now and forfeit responsibility, this wouldn't change that.

I judge my infant to be economically self sufficient......

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

If it's consensual then yes, what makes sex worse than any other activity? I don't see sex as an evil, inappropriate thing.

It has consequences that can be totally life altering. Most 15 yr olds do not have the ability to recognize the responsibility that could be thrust upon them.

Originally Posted by Sonofodin

That has to do with the poverty they live in, not parental protections.

It's because they aren't protected from child labor by child labor laws. In the U.S., pretty much kids under the age of 14 are not allowed to work for that reason.

Originally Posted by perdidochas

Have yourself emancipated. The thing is, observations have shown us that most under 18 yr olds do not have the mental capacity to do such a thing.

Shouldn't be necessary.

LOL, I have some sympathy with the OP, and, as I turned 18 six weeks ago, I am a legal adult and you lot (many of whom have been dismissing me as a kid since I joined) have to take me seriously now.

I'm not sure quite what point Sonofodin is making, but it almost appears he is being 'piled on' a bit for introducing an interesting topic. Apropos of which, I think a lot of under 18 year olds are quite mature, and would be quite capable of looking after themselves were they living independently.

I also agree that some of the restrictions placed on teens (even myself at 18 in respect of staying out late and drinking,) are a bit Draconian. Like I can understand parents being concerned about chicks, but what can happen to a 15-18 year old guy? Like we're big enough to take care of ourselves in a fight, and we are not going to get in the pudding club, are we?

So how about objectively examining what he has to say? And I don't think he meant human rights in the UN sense, but many teens are not afforded all rights adults are.