Mace Panda Poo wrote:
Every citizen of a nation should be able to vote. There are more ways to contribute to society than paying taxes. For example mothers, volunteers, and soldiers, all contribute greatly to society even though they don't pay taxes. I'm inclined to say they are more beneficial than many people who do pay taxes so why shouldn't they be able to vote?
Hold on a minute. I assume you mean "combat zone tax exclusion" when you say "soldiers". But what "mothers" and "volunteers" are you talking about, exactly? Most mothers work and pay taxes. Volunteers volunteer their free time after work. They pay taxes as well. Are you implying that "mothers" and "volunteers" are denied their right to vote?
If you mean adolescent "mothers" and volunteers do not pay taxes, just say so. And what is wrong with "many people" who pay taxes? Why are they less beneficial, in your opinion?
14-16 years old have part-time jobs and pay their taxes. That is one of the main arguments in favor of lowering the voting age, which, in the US, has already been lowered once -- from 21 to 18.
I am going to side with GawainBS and ask the same question: which criterion would you personally use to determine a new age?
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-- Euripides
Mycerin wrote:<SNIP> unless you're Lindsay Lohan, go to jail after the second...<SNIP>
Hey that was a bum wrap! It was Herbie driving.
Criteria?
The title suggests it, "Coming of age", at what point do you become a major (Non-minor)? If you can't sign anything legally binding until your 18 that should probably be the age for everything that assumes an adult role. I personally can see that driving is a legitimate exception (If the 'adult age is 18)because, although the car is the most common piece of lethal machinery in use, there are plenty of others (Chainsaw, chip frier, gun)and an employer may need to train a staff member in their use of these. That would tend to lead inevitably to having to contemplete an age for all these things to be around fifteen.
On the other hand it might be worth considering whether a staged coming of age has benefits in developing responsibility.
I strongly believe that being able to die for your country but being unable to vote is clearly unjust. But then isn't also taxation without representation, and that just leads us back to the chip frier. - Curdis !
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
In the US the voting age and draft age are both 18 so you really can't serve in a war before you can vote. You can however give your life for your country before you are allowed to drink a beer in it. I'm 34 now but was once 18 and in the military and found this quite disheartening. I believe the drinking age should definitely be 18. As was previously stated most kids are doing it anyhow so it might as well be in the open and better controlled. I do have to disagree with the thought that teenagers are not politically savvy enough to be allowed to vote. I know PLENTY of people who can hardly remember their teens and still don't know enough about politics to cast an intelligent vote. But a line has to be drawn somewhere does it not? Should a 5 year old be allowed to vote? Obviously not so I guess 18 is as good an age as any. You ought to at least have a say in choosing the person sending you to war right?
Success takes commitment. In a bacon and eggs breakfast the chicken is involved but the pig is committed...be the pig!!!
I remember my highschool english teacher telling stories of the day when they did lower the drinking age to 18. That was during social movements of the day. The problem was then the younger kids knew older friends who would buy them beer. Of course its still possible that they know someone now. But an 18 year old is more likely to buy beer for a 16 year old whereas a 21 year old doesn't want to spend time with the cops and tells the 16 year old to buzz off.
He said there was a lot of kids drunk in class. Humorous at first look but not really good. Well assuming that you value an education at least and don't think that arm curls are education.
Edit: arm curls in place of education is formally known as college.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
Keggy officially rules. I'm thinking of co-opting him into the SLURRs.
As far as voting criteria goes (this is one I've thought about a lot as Oz also has compulsory voting and elections are often won on outright lies, fear-mongering and smear campaigns) how about a degree of 'informedness'? I realise this is another hard one to measure but it seems to me that an informed electorate is one of those necessary factors for representative democracy to work, and a lot of voters not only aren't informed on a lot of things (myself included, my own interests can be somewhat narrow) but are often making their votes on outright misinformation. As the easiest 'sample question' or two to spring to mind: "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11: True/False?", or for a more antipodean example "Selling yellowcake uranium to India is in violation of the Nukular Non-Proliferation Treaty, (which Australia is a signatory to): True/False?". Alternately, "Name three policies espoused by the Democrat/Republicans."
Just tossing the idea out there.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
Claudius wrote:I remember my highschool english teacher telling stories of the day when they did lower the drinking age to 18. That was during social movements of the day. The problem was then the younger kids knew older friends who would buy them beer. Of course its still possible that they know someone now. But an 18 year old is more likely to buy beer for a 16 year old whereas a 21 year old doesn't want to spend time with the cops and tells the 16 year old to buzz off.
So is the point of this anecdote that the legal drinking age should be a few years higher than the minimum age at which people should be able to drink?
He said there was a lot of kids drunk in class...
I'm going to assert that this is nothing but a sign of a poor education system.
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person.~Chanak
Ode to a Grasshopper wrote:Keggy officially rules. I'm thinking of co-opting him into the SLURRs.
As far as voting criteria goes (this is one I've thought about a lot as Oz also has compulsory voting and elections are often won on outright lies, fear-mongering and smear campaigns) how about a degree of 'informedness'? I realise this is another hard one to measure but it seems to me that an informed electorate is one of those necessary factors for representative democracy to work, and a lot of voters not only aren't informed on a lot of things (myself included, my own interests can be somewhat narrow) but are often making their votes on outright misinformation. As the easiest 'sample question' or two to spring to mind: "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11: True/False?", or for a more antipodean example "Selling yellowcake uranium to India is in violation of the Nukular Non-Proliferation Treaty, (which Australia is a signatory to): True/False?". Alternately, "Name three policies espoused by the Democrat/Republicans."
Just tossing the idea out there.
In theory, this is fine and I see the merits of it, but since politics influence real-life events, it might pay off to have people who experience real-life daily. Not all political savvy persons have a life, so to speak. Some are a bunch of cloistered geeks doing nothing but keeping track of politics, which makes them loose the feeling with the "world of real men & women out there." Ofcourse, not all are, but I wanted to point out the possible problems, despite being a good system in intention.
As for the drinking age: Like I said before, here in Belgium the age is 16 and it's violated daily, but you don't trip over drunken teenagers in the streets. I think that if you get it out of the attractive sphere of "forbidden", it looses much of its appeal. Many people said it already: if they really want to, kids will get their hands on booze. Better to allow it openly and form a sort of social control.
GawainBS wrote:In theory, this is fine and I see the merits of it, but since politics influence real-life events, it might pay off to have people who experience real-life daily. Not all political savvy persons have a life, so to speak. Some are a bunch of cloistered geeks doing nothing but keeping track of politics, which makes them loose the feeling with the "world of real men & women out there." Ofcourse, not all are, but I wanted to point out the possible problems, despite being a good system in intention.
As for the drinking age: Like I said before, here in Belgium the age is 16 and it's violated daily, but you don't trip over drunken teenagers in the streets. I think that if you get it out of the attractive sphere of "forbidden", it looses much of its appeal. Many people said it already: if they really want to, kids will get their hands on booze. Better to allow it openly and form a sort of social control.
Ouch... Not really, RL has sort of hijacked my life right now so sitting around watching the news in my beloved ivory tower has had to take a back seat for the moment. Good point.
I totally agree on #2 there.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
Hehehe. I did not say it was always the case, just trying to add perspective to it: the smart people are not necessarily (sp?) the wise people.
My friend worded it perfectly yesterday evening: "Equality entails the unequal treatment of each unequal/different individual." It sounds like a contradictio in terminis, but it has truth in it. It is also the reason why the only objectively, morally not-ambiguous criterion we have to determine wether or not people are allowed to vote, is age. It is the only thing we can acquire all just as easily, or as hard.
Just to add: I don't say this is perfect. Many people here said many quite smart things, but democracy is not about being smart or best, but about being equally fair for everybody.
Drinking age
Here in Finland the age when you are allowed to officially drink is 18. Also, we have second age limit, for buying strong spirits and such, which is 20. Basically, you can get to the bar and drink anything you want at the age of 18, and this also includes strong spirits. But, to be able to buy those strong spirits from shop (in Finland only one company is allowed to sell stronger drinks than beer or cider) you must be 20.
I don't see any reason why the age should be lowered, as in my opinion "because younger people drink alcohol anyway" isn't valid reason. That is because if we lower the limit to 16, then the problem of younger ages drinking would remain, this time it would only be around 14-years-old who begins drinking. And again, we have the same argument, "because those younger persons drink anyway". At some point, there becomes limit of how yong body can stand alcohol. It is a fact that when we go lower in terms of age, the less the body can stand alcohol. And, if we get over the line, the results would be disasterous.
Driving age
Currently, here it's 18. And I don't see any reason to change it lower (or higher).
As others have stated here already, younger persons tend to be affected more easily by their friends. Yes, such problem exists even in higher ages, but it's worse on younger age. Also, is someone who is only 16 able to both handle car AND chaotic traffic? Possibly some, but definately not everyone. And, when we add the affection of pressure from friends, namely urge to "show out", we get dangerous combination.
Then, why not raise the age limit? The problem comes in the fact that most of those who are 18-years-old tend to either study or work in other town than where their parents live. And, in many cases they just need easy way to travel, and not always public transportation is an option. For exmple, I now work on evening shifts. There is hardly any busses going at that time when I get off from work, and those few have such a schedule which would frce me to wait around an hour. So, basically private car is only good option for me there. And I know many similiar situations.
Voting age
Now this, is actually difficult question, as we must determine when person is "wise enough" to be able to vote. Well, this depends totally on the person. Someone can be more mature even at the age of 15, while someone can be very "childish" at the age of 25. So, there isn't any rule which would work in every single situations.
Here in Finland the age when you can vote is 18. I see it rather good age, as that's the age when you can join the army, you can drink, drive a car and do a lots of other things forbidden from younger persons. Basically, here you are considered as an adult when you are 18.
As some have already stated here, the problem in lowering the age limit for voting comes from the question that can so young as 16-years-old make an vote which reflects his true opinion of politics, or is it just a relfection of the pressure of the friends or idolizing the celebreties? Some time ago, one celebrety got elected in my opinion only because many thought him "so cool" or voted him as a joke. The celebrety in question was boxer, ex-wrestler (IIRC he was once part of the RAW team), and he had questionable reputation concerning drugs, guns and doping. The problem of lowering the age would be that we get more of these "joke" persons elected, as young may not be as interested in politics, but stil may cast votes without much thinking. And the result can be like what I described above.
"As we all know, holy men were born during Christmas...
Like mr. Holopainen over there!" - Marco Hietala, the bass player of Nightwish
I think drunk kids in school is not a sign of the education system. It is a sign of kids too immature to drink alcohol. The anecdote illustrates the disadvantage of lower drinking age. Unless you think its ok to have kids drunk in school I guess.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
The drinking age here has been 16 for years now and I never heard of drunken kids in classes. If you're so simpleminded to get drunk before/during school, you wouldn't have been stopped by a law.
I'm more inclined to think it's rather a problem with said students than with the Drinking age.
Gawain, there are some kids in school drunk now. But when it was legal at 18 there were younger kids who had friends that could buy alcohol. A 21 year old is smart enough to know that something bad happens with alcohol and they named as buyer then cops see them.
Also I understand that in your location the kids are mature enough to drink at 16. Thats great but the maturity isn't inherent to their being 16. It is a part of the social mandala in your area. In other areas what you find true in yours might not be the case. Exceptions to every observation and so forth.
I am just basing this on one teacher's observations. And also the fact that the law was moved down to 18 then later they decided to move it back to 21 because too much problems.
If a law is set at 18 vs. 21 we get a different outcome. We cannot possibly predict although we can forecast. Whether someone feels comfortable with 18 21 16 4 or 8 is a matter of opinion but the actual outcome is just what happens in practice (factual).
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
That's what I am saying. I based my observation on several schools and even never heard of it being a problem anywhere. (Here, that is.) Despite this, I wouldn't exactly describe the "average" kid at school here as responsible. Maybe it's because of stricter and more displined schools who simply don't tolerate it? This seems the most plausible to me.
Your exampled sound like the typical "Huzzah, we can do something now that's been illegal, so let's taste that forbidden fruit!"
Yeah Gawain I hear you and I wouldn't be one to tell another land what works for them. I wasn't actually advocating a stand or something in any case although in a different thread we did talk about drugs and alcohol etc.
I merely wanted to tell the story of what my english teacher told me of when the US tried to lower its age. He was a nice guy and had been talking with his debate students about various things. He wasn't really complaining about kids he was just telling a funny story. He had all kinds of stories like about his car during the beginning of his career having a hole in the bottom of the passanger side haha.
I have seen some negative sides of drinking. But actually I am reading an interesting book called the fermentation revolution. It is about saving the world through beer drinking. I think it talks of sustainable business that is a benefit to society rather than exponential growth at all costs. I just read the introduction. Its good because the guy is very passionate and writes in a kind of dude rapping (slang for casual relaxed) at the bar style rather than a scientific approach. Not that I find science useless but it is a different style of writing.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
Mace Panda Poo wrote:No i'm not impling that; but if we only let people who pay taxes vote many of them would be denied that right.
Which is why we don't do that and instead are forced to rely on age as a determining factor.
Claudius, I think that your story shows that whatever the age is, problems will ensue.
Any comments on [url="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/08/01/economic_illiteracy"]this piece[/url] about young voters and their level of political awareness?
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
Maybe I misread the article, but the basis of it seemed to be Greed=good, altruism=bad. Outsourcing is good because it makes the company rich, to heck with all the guys who lost their jobs. Profit is fine, if you (like the writer evidently) are the one making it. Not much at all about the voting capabilities of younger people, except to indicate that as many of them disagree with the writer they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
[QUOTE=Darth Gavinius;1096098]Distrbution of games, is becoming a little like Democracy (all about money and control) - in the end choice is an illusion and you have to choose your lesser evil.
And everything is hidden in the fine print.[/QUOTE]
