The Rights of Minors

[gabrielzero]

I am highly segmented on this issue, very highly, partly because it wasn't that long ago that I was considered by law a minor myself and a very stubborn minor at that, plus a few personal feelings regarding humanity as a whole tend to split (As I'm sure it does others) into two sides, both will be addressed before I develop a headstrong opinion of one.

1st Paragraph: Pro Rights of Minors
2nd Paragraph: Con Rights of Minors

Every man (And that includes women) is born Equal under God (Or more accuratly the State), that's the basis on which Modern Western Government create their laws, partly for moral reasons and mostly because of the Economic benefits it has proven to achieve. That freedom extends to all individuals until they infringe on the freedom of others, and technichly that should include minors. Decisions based on their lives will primarly affect them (And partly those around them, like it does for adults) and because they have the most viable knowledge of how it affects them, it should solely fall to them...however.

Most minors have caregivers, mostly parents, who have raised that minor since birth, for better or worse. They have given that minor life, they are responsible for it as well as the minor's outlook and well being, hence they are responsible for the minor's decisions, until that minor reaches a stage where he/she is no longer a minor in the eyes of the State. However...

Should the State dictate what a minor is? and what the minor can do?

And what if the caregivers fail to prove themselves responsible, what then?

To what extent should minors be provided rights to their own decision, if any?

[Autumn]

A minor is a person who has an age below an arbitrarily selected age. I have written about this a month ago, so I will start by posting it up:

Originally Posted by Winter

Arbitrarily selected levels of anything are nearly impossible to avoid, without running into serious problems. My ultra-liberal friend was attacking my stance on drugs, sex, selling rights etc., which I know to be logically flawed. For those who don't know, I hold a very liberal attitude in many areas and a great belief in the power of contracts. However, before I'd allow a person to, for example, legally purchase drugs, sell their body or voluntarily enter into slavery I'd require them to be educated to a certain level of information so they are aware of the consequences and are making an informed choice. This level would therefore be arbitrarily decided by me and advisers, although not naively nor randomly, which is important to keep in mind. For saying I would make these arbitrary choices I came under renewed attack. Not only would I educate people to an arbitrary level of information but I'd also be making an arbitrary choice in the areas which people would need a qualification for! "Why not require a qualification for being informed about the dangers of eating ham past the sell by date?" I was asked.

NB: The qualifications would be fairly difficult to obtain and it would be unlikely younger members of society would be able to attain them. The difficulty would be set for around the intelligence level of the average 17 year old. Citizens would be able to be tested for the qualification certificate at any stage of their life.

"If someone wants to make an uninformed choice then that is their right." Maybe so, but there isn't a choice. If you are uninformed then you can only make an uninformed decision whereas if you have been informed you can only make an informed decision. I'd rather have the latter than the former. Yes, people make plenty of uninformed choices in their life time and I wouldn't propose the state forces a qualification to be obtained in some of them. However, the cases where the state does force a qualification to be obtained would be the arbitrarily selected set of activites and deemed to be more important than other activites where a "line" has been drawn at an arbitrary point so there is less of the "slippery slope" problem. A lot of paper wasted? More later.

We deal with imperfect information (instances of asymmetrical information) in many transactions, especially when purchasing expensive second hand goods, like houses and cars. Alright, monetary loss can be damaging to a lifestyle, but I believe that people are educated about avoiding large monetary losses on 'big ticket' items through life experience and when most people get to the point of buying a house, car or other expensive good they are likely to check the good thoroughly to minimize risks. However, I do think a five year old should be protected from having sex with a 60 year old if the five year old is uninformed. I posed the scenario to my friend: "A 60 year old man offers a five year old girl a chocolate bar in exchange for sex. Because the girl wants the chocolate she might say yes, not realizing what she is agreeing to because she is uninformed." His reply: "She agreed to the transaction, and since sex would be illegal by default, there would need to be three witnesses from both parties to sign a contractual agreement. Once done, even though she is uninformed it's fine because she wants to carry out the exchange. She would quickly learn." Just like the mentally unfit would be protected from entering such transactions by the state, uninformed citizens would be too with regards to issues where informed numbers would be low if it weren't for a complusory state education before legal participation.

He said he would make sex illegal by default because I forced him into admitting he'd otherwise have to make arbitrary decisions. Initially, he claimed that certain activities should not require three witnesses, such as people looking for one night stands. However, how does the state decide which activites to allow "relaxed" contracts to be used in? The commonly performed tasks by the public? How is commonly defined? A large amount? An arbitrarily large amount? And in his view arbitrary = always bad. I'd make it law that all contracts must have three witnesses from both parties, these witnesses cannot be passers-by and must personally know the parties involved and of course, witnesses would have to supply an address and contact details so they can be traced. This would prevent, for example, seven slavers going around seizing people and then signing contracts that stated the seized would have to be a slave.

I've always thought not changing your mind when faced with a wholly logical argument that refutes your beliefs is foolish, yet I am guilty myself. I can't escape making arbitrary selections even though doing things arbitrarily is logically unsound. The alternatives of not being arbitrary are perceived by me to be worse, so I choose the lesser of many evils. Applying logic to my decision making based on the options available, I consider my reasoning to be valid. Simply, it is the process by which I have derived the options available to me that is the problem.

In short, "minors" are denied certain rights (e.g. voting) because the state perceives them unable to make an informed choice since they lack the "necessary" education. After the age of 18 (in Britain) the state deems the individual responsible enough to purchase alcohol, vote and have a credit card.

Should the State dictate what a minor is? and what the minor can do?

I don't believe so. Any age limit would be arbitrarily selected and a better system would be to educate the population as that is the main concern - people making "undesirable" (as seen by the state) decisions.

And what if the caregivers fail to prove themselves responsible, what then?

They get their kids taken away from them.

To what extent should minors be provided rights to their own decision, if any?

As long as they have qualifications to prove they are well informed enough. This is mentioned in the large quote above.

EDIT: My discussion of arbitrary age limits is by no means complete and I'm aware not every possible criticism has been covered, but it's already moderately long and I don't have the motivation right now to add anything.

[Sasquatch]

Originally Posted by Winter

In short, "minors" are denied certain rights (e.g. voting) because the state perceives them unable to make an informed choice since they lack the "necessary" education. After the age of 18 (in Britain) the state deems the individual responsible enough to purchase alcohol, vote and have a credit card.

Not just education, but maturity and responsibility, as well. But you're right, it's because the state perceives them to be unable to make mature, responsible, informed decisions. And, for the most part, they're right. High schoolers are irresponsible enough without the opportunity to vote or get (more) alcohol, we don't need to give them any more "rights".

In America, it's 18 to vote or have a credit card (I believe it's 18 for that, and debit cards are allowed at 16, but I'm not sure), and usually 21 to purchase alcohol, though each state determines that and sometimes it's 20 or 18.

[Vicious]

I mainly agree with Winter and Sadquatch here, but there is something that gets to me. Now we know a child or group of kids who are mistreated will be taken away from their current guardian, but something I see a lot is the fact a lot of people do not see what is happening to children behind closed doors. Like pedofiles for example, it seems to be really difficult to find these people who do that sick shit and everyday more adults become this way. Not only that, but people do not see the damage being done to children by parents who have a mindset of the way of their thinking is right more than others. Like one of my friends had a mom who had only dated and married one man and knew absolutely shit about everything. During her lifetime a lot of shit happened to my friend because her mother had a lack of knowledge and too much pride, therefore never caring at to these certain happenings.

I think if anything "Parenting" should be policed itself to ensure each and every child IS safe from both mental and physical harm. And from there my friend is pretty ****ed up from this shit so it's very concerning. If anything it really isn't the minor's fault for doing what they do since parents THINK they are protecting their child and have the whole "Oh they wouldn't do that" ideal crap. Peer pressure, bad influences (Gangs, drinking, shit like that), and other stuff really turn minor's world upside down. Basically I'd just like to see more activity into parent's behavior and ways of teaching.

[Sasquatch]

I'd like to see better parenting too, but it's nobody's place to enforce that. If we did, we'd be living in a police state, no rights in the say of how our children are raised. It's sad that parenting has degraded to the point that it has, but there's not much we can do about it unless something really bad happens.