Age: The Next Equality Movement?
Ageism: A term coined by old people worried about facing discrimination from younger more fit people. This word has been in circulation in America for years without the real ageism ever being brought up: society pressing minors by denying them rights based solely of age.
The 14th amendment promises all American citizens with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, such that they cannot be abridged without due process of law. However, the amendment was passed in 1868, so it clearly did not include "all citizens”, as women did not even receive the right to vote until 1920 (though that is more of an issue with the 15th). It is thus evidently possible that society may be currently overlooking their own oppression as "natural" while preaching equality. That "oppressed" group: young people.
Minors are denied an incredible amount of rights because they are supposedly less mature than (I guess I'll call them "majors" or something). Minors cannot enter into binding contracts, or vote, or drive, or drink, or consent, or even check into hotels on their own. None of these rights, were
Is it really true that on a persons 16th or 18th or 21st birthday they go through some profound transformation suddenly enabling them to handle “adult” responsibilities? That is obviously preposterous. Today, in all states, drivers are required to pass a test proving their competency behind the wheel earning them a license, but they are also required to be of that states legal driving age (usually 16). The issue with this is that plenty of 15, 14, 13, even 12 year olds can pass their driving tests while it takes many 16 and 17 year olds multiple times. My grandfather was driving a tractor by age 11 but could not apply the same skills on the road for five years where he would have been a far better driver than many people on the road. If a test is required to prove someone is capable of driving safely, why not allow anyone to take it? If all these states are really correct, anyone younger than 16 would simply fail their drivers test, which we all know is not true.
It is amazing in this country that 4 out 5 members of our 2016 women’s olympic gymnastics team that was sent to represent our country were not even guaranteed full legal rights in this “free” country with star gymnast, Simon Biles, not even allowed to check into hotels on her own. All of history young people have been proving that they are equally capable of greatness. Malala Yousafzai was 16 years old when she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, Mozart was 5 years old when he began composing, Blaise Pascal wrote his famous, self-named Pascal’s Theorem at 16, Bobby Fischer won the US chess championship at 14, and countless others have had astonishing accomplishments at ages were the United States does not believe they should vote.
Why should it be that someone as intelligent with as great leadership ability as Malala should not be allowed to hold public office? Hamilton was 21 years old during the revolution, an age we don’t allow people to serve in congress at. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the document signifying our nation’s independence, was too young to be president.
With the exception of Mozart, most of my arguments have been about teenagers, but I do not believe that means we should just move the age requirements from 18 and 21 to 11. I have not mentioned such things as 4 year olds not being able to legally give consent which, yes, I think is a very necessary thing in this country. Mostly, because I have not found a great way to address such issues and moving the age of a minor down will create similar problems as exist today. One possible solution I have come up with is that anyone deserves full legal rights either when they become 18 or the day they declare themselves deserving at a government office.
I think one reason this issue does not receive much attention is that being a minor is a temporary thing. Eventually people receive full legal rights so many minors are happy just to wait, but I think it is our responsibility to ensure that future generations receive the rights they deserve.
I know that this topic is very controversial and many of you may disagree. Please share your opinions. My argument is in its infancy, but it is something I have felt deserved to at least be written about. As my ideas are very new I assume they will soon change especially as a reflection of the responses I get. I’m eager to learn what you have to say.
In case you are wondering, I am 16, but I think I will still support rights for minors when I am older.
- ə
I've met people that are 27 or in their 30s that still have no clue. Really actual age doesn't track self responsibility and preparedness.
Some young people may learn it early. Most don't. Some older people may still not have learned it.
It should be basically about when a person is capable of surviving on their own. I believe in the non-aggression principle. I also don't believe in forcing people to do things. The exception to that is that as a parent you kind of have to force your children to do things until they are capable of protecting themselves and surviving on their own.
The real question though is when does that happen? It is not the same for all people so picking arbitrary numbers is a one size fits all approach and that rarely works for anything it is attempted on.
Thank you for your response, this is very helpful! Is there a way the law can be fair without using a one-size fits all aproach?
I am of the mind. No victim, no crime. Then it boils down to what constitutes harm. That can be subjective. That is the problem... laws generally are one size fits all.
If I had my way I'd have a society that followed the Non-Aggression Principle, with a Free Market.
Basically you could do what you want as long as it did not involve forcing others to do things against their will or with their property.
Really the only tricky LAW I think really believe would be needed would be defining what constituted property, and how one acquired it.
There can be a lot of options there. Yet with NAP, Free Market Contracts, and some kind of Property Law I think that's about all that would really be needed.
Note... NAP, the Non-Aggression Principle Does not mean will not defend themselves or others. It simply means they will not initiate force. It will only come in response to force initiated against them.
So... law... pretty simple. No Victim, No Crime.
To add to what I said... where the NAP is confusing is how it applies to children. At what age do they become a person that a parent should not be able to force them to do things. I can only say when they have shown they are capable of supporting themselves and surviving on their own.
I agree
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by schwa from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.