"The Omen, AS, Teachers/School and Child Lib"!

Post Reply New Topic

oh well, it's an idea whose time may have not yet come. It took about 100 years, (?) between Mills "In Defense of Women", an early pre-feminist work, and women getting the vote.
John Holt wrote his books in the 70s mainly. George Bernard Shaw mentioned the idea in his essays, but it was little noticed.

I wonder when it'll happen. I look forward to it anyway. I'd vote for under-18s in parliament.

They ( the group known as children) have still to catch up on the political changes of the last 150 years. Last in the queue for the new thing human rights. While they don't have it relations between the two groups will get worse and worse. The repressive measures will become more and more inhuman; they have already become inhuman.
I don't understand why anyone would say in the hi-tech world of today that under-18s should be excluded from work, votes, etc. What possible reason is there? Except despotism.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 9:32 am, edited 3 times in total.

And hopefully won't ever. I am tired of all of these calls for the rights of non-autonomous beings. I mean, I am fine with you treating your kid like an adult and I can accept you treating your dog like a spouse(so long as you don't try to make the thing drive), but really, just because you have some warped notion of the world doesn't mean that you should force us to live as if it were true and remake the world by your standard.

One of the worst things to ever happen too. Partially joking, but actually some scholars do think that the increase in women voters led to the increase in the size of government and our large government is not wholly a blessing.


And I distrust most of the 60 year olds as undereducated fools who need watching over... I actually don't think that an individual under 18 will ever get elected though, simply because of the meritocratic(and plutocratic) tendencies we tend to see in politics... which are imperfect but still exist.

Who says we need to do anything? We need to avoid a lot of this nonsense rather than meritlessly pass around legal rules.

They can't smoke, they can't have sex, they can't bear arms, yeah, they are politically repressed.

Now Awesomely, perhaps you could provide a genuine argument, rather than just speak of the brainwashing you`ve endured your whole life. I would like laws to be abolished, for you and others to not allow your BS to go on.

Do I actually have to provide an argument? You are the one who would like "laws to be abolished", I merely want to maintain the status quo and if there are not legitimate counterarguments, then the status quo will remain.

Really though, I did put forward some arguments:
1) Younger people are not fully mentally developed and that this development continues into late teens with the development of good responsibility.

2) Younger people are going to be inevitably on average less educated then those older because they have less time to gain knowledge and experience and thus an age cut off is a legitimate way to cut off for knowledge given that other methods cannot be used.

Now, it is really nice that you can pull of a snarky attitude with me, but really, why on earth should this change? There is no evidence from my view that younger populations will improve average voting quality, and if anything will reduce it considering the relationship between years of education and political knowledge. Not only that but most of the other rights are not needed at all by dependents and rather only refer to independents. Make your case.

Nicely put.

OOOh...while we give children full "human rights," let's put them to work so they can pay taxes.

While voting, drinking, and sex laws are arbitrary, they are social constructs for initiating a person into sociey. It's based on the idea that children need protection and care because they are not able to take care of themselves up to a certain age. Also it's believed that entering adulthood also requires certain responsibilities. Where society draws these lines is debatable, but there are reasons they are there. Age laws also deal with people with mental or neurological disorders--while they may not be able to work, they will be recognized as adult with adult rights.

If we allow children to vote, then what about sex? That's an adult responsibility. Would there be laws similar to what we have now to protect children from predatory adults? Or would children be allowed to form romantic relationships with adults?

Most societies require some kind of training and rites to go into the next phase of life. I think this is important, and maybe we need to formalize some of this. One can not have rights unless there is some recognition of responsibility, and once a person becomes an adult, that person is responsible for helping support the community and liable for her own actions. So would a child in this new world require the same punishments for crimes committed? Would the same rules apply?

A child is a child. Not a little adult. Cognitively, emotionally, mentally.

Lau, maybe the question should be: would you let the children jump?



This whole idea of giving children the right

Human rights are like an upgrade, like Word 2001 rather than Word 1998.
When King Charles I of England had his head chopped off by order of parliament in 1660 (ish) the parliament consisted of the lords and little else, and was only just throwing off a situation in which the king was free to abolish it when pissed off.
Human rights had not even been invented.

But they have now, and as each new group gets them ( right to vote and own property essentially until recently) another group realises that it too should have them, that in fact their very existence now legitimates political privilege unless everyone has them. People have disagreed throughout over who "everyone" meant. For the ancient greeks it was enough that free men vote, not women or slaves. In England in the 1700s it depended on how much money you had.

Nowadays it seems a lot of people think that the right to vote should depend on being able to think independently and follow abstract arguments............ something most people over-18 have trouble doing. Using this argument to exclude under-18s is discrimination.

Some also seem to believe that assigning the right to vote is about improving the quality of the vote, a curious attitude which apart from sounding vaguely fascist, seems to suggest that all the people with IQs under 100, possibly all those suffering from mental illness, and those with significant vested interests, etc should not be allowed to vote, but as most people would find this unacceptable using this argument to exclude under-18s is discrimination.

The belief that under-18s should be excluded from the vote and other human rights because they are not ready for responsibilities which arise from having any political power in a society is uninformed. Under-18s the world over are capable of the most conscientious and scrupulous and sustained responsibility, in all areas of life, from physical care of relatives/family, and valuable animals, through financial and business concerns, accountability, organisation, etc, to political activity and community involvement. To suggest that under-18s should be excluded from the vote because they can not carry responsibilities is discrimination. ( and highly offensive)

Mention has been made of "non-autonomous beings" and "dependents" and "not being able to take care of themselves", as if being dependent on others is a disqualification from the vote and other human rights. I hope nobody could take this seriously, not on WP or anywhere ?!
Apart from the fact that as many under-18s as over-18s can and do take care of themselves very well when are allowed to, society now has laws to protect smaller, "weaker" types against others, even if it only works some of the time.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 9:35 am, edited 15 times in total.

Something i've become aware of reading these posts is how in the rich industrialised West the average under-18 year old is practically disabled/handicapped/invalid. ( as women in the rich middle classes in the late 1800s were) , and perceived as an inadequate irresponsible incapable.

Whereas in many other parts of the world under-18s are autonomously-functioning fully-contributing respected members of the community. From when they first become responsible for the chickens at 5 years old, to taking the goats out aged 8, to repairing the precious bits of machinery aged10 and looking after 3 younger children , clothing and feeding and keeping an eye on the toddler etc, they are involved and productive and valued.

The picture painted on here of the western under-18 year old is awful. As if noone has seen any autonomous, participating or responsible under-18s, they have become so rare in the west. Which isn't surprising seeing how almost all responsibility, almost all autonomy, has been removed from them.

And i realise again why watching "The Omen", and seeing its picture of a supposedly hateful child, with no role except lap dog ( or spawn of satan! or precious lamb; they seem to be two sides of same coin) made me wonder whether the increasing number of people diagnosed with sensory and cognitive disorders , with AS and ADHD etc, might have something to do with child rights, just as the "hysteria epidemic" of the late 1800s did with womens rights.



PS: Just thought of another writer who argued for child rights; Shulasmith Firestone.

Yeah, well, I hate Word 2007. It just pisses me off!! I want to keep the current Word!

Yes, and today it depends on whether or not you are old enough or deserving of them. So? Privilege. Ok. Some people have more privileges than others, heck, you see age distributed privileges in families all of the time.

Yes, it should. A lot of people over 18 have problems doing that, but the argument still stands because a lot of people under 18


Well, significant vested interests is not something one can remove or test for. I find this argument *completely* acceptable. It is not fascist and I don't know why so many people consider an argument against voting rights to be fascist as fascism has more to do with social, economic and foreign policies than it has to do with these privileges. Frankly, I would eliminate the other 2 groups from the voting pool. To vote is to exercise power over others, this is not a naturally derived right but rather a legal practice as it does not follow from any sort of self-ownership that one should be able to force others what to do using a government.


Uninformed? That did not address my argument but rather pushed it aside, especially considering that I did not argue anything about some youths but rather the average and median youths, which should be the focus of any attention when discussing this kind of issue. I don't care whether you label it discrimination or offensive, tell me exactly why we shouldn't do this. None of your reasons so far seem to suggest that it is a good idea to give them this right and mostly go back to rhetoric, and I honestly don't care about your rhetoric on rights or any other nonsense.

Well, why do they need property if they are never going to have a semblance of autonomy? The same goes for most of the other rights which by their nature suppose the autonomy of an individual. There is a reason why the mentally handicapped don't get much use of those rights either. I did not use the autonomy argument completely against the ability to vote, mostly against other rights saying that if they are not going to be exercised then why bother giving them. I really don't consider voting a right though, I consider it a power and responsibility that most people don't deserve and that thankfully most people don't exercise.

Yes, but that sure isn't out society, nor are those examples of autonomous functioning. Youths are supposed to be productive in our society too, just less directly as they are meant to learn and build human capital. I don't consider them to be undervalued either most of the time given how many privileges and material possessions families give them in some form or another.


Awful? The argument isn't that they are incapable, the argument is that they don't practice autonomy and thus don't need some rights and that they are less responsible and knowledgeable and thus don't need other rights.

Really though, do you have a positive case rather than "look at the children, they are not as bad as you think". As I stated earlier "if there are not legitimate counterarguments, then the status quo will remain." That is not a legitimate counterargument. You presuppose that children need rights and thus that we should give children rights, your opponents argue that children don't need rights and are willing to argue that from pragmatic and utilitarian standpoints there is not a good argument to give them rights. Now honestly, we cannot debunk the premise that children should have rights as we can never directly argue against any form of morality without shutting down all forms(unless we appeal to a higher form that you accept), this means that either no side will be able to attack the other's position or one side will have to accept the other's moral view somewhat, and guess what, I am not accommodating to a crazy rights based view.

Spot on. Adult do not "scale down" into children. Adulthood is nominally accorded at some point along the line. Using age 18 is a "rule of thumb" that works tolerably well. As it progressively become more practical to limit the damage from incautious use of power, maybe that age could be adjusted downward. I'd accept arguments along those lines - not a blanket "I think we must allow voting rights 'in utero' immediately!" approach.


This is one element of the question I asked. I intended that to be option in a reply. Ouinon refuses to address any aspect of my question, claiming that she doesn't understand the question. I believe it is more because any attempt at an answer rather shatters her illusion of "age egalitarianism". Merely rephrasing the same long-winded speech again and again is not going to compensate for a lack of basis. At which age is she saying votes are to be ignored?

I lean heavily towards a remark (of Awesomelyglorious?) earlier on, that there is no such thing as a "right". What there are are social "courtesies". These are accorded to people who show themselves deserving of them, or rather, do not act in ways to show they are unworthy of those courtesies. We are living in the most courteous society that has ever existed, in my estimation. May it become ever more so.

PS. I wonder if Ouinon might consider "arguing" the case for "the right to torture and/or murder indiscriminately", which should be accorded to all, especially sadists, and children?

Heheh this is crazy, it's like when Zhang Fei and Kuan Yu duked it out with Lu Bu, and neither side was looking like they'd give in (Sits down and gets some pop corn), so who's going to be Liu Bei?

Ahhh well, you know what happened to Lu Bu in the end right?

Awesomely Glorious, you asked what POSITIVE arguments i had for arguing for child rights. Here is one, based on a bit of a reply i posted yesterday on this thread.
(which i've unfortunately managed to nuke while writing this, but oh well!! )

Many people on arriving at 18 years old/"adulthood" are corrupted by the power they receive.
Most human beings are corrupted to some extent by power, therefore the moment a "child" becomes an "adult"( by simple virtue of passing 18 years) is perhaps the most dangerous moment in a persons life, at which, drunk with new privileges, because that is what they are while not everybody has them, they risk becoming tyrants, or benevolent despots, themselves.
The change of status may make them behave less than sympathetically towards less privileged people, even going as far as suggesting that political powers be withdrawn from any but an elite few, out of bitterness at having spent 18 years without the rights that so many "stupid", or corrupt, or even worse, people to whom it meant nothing, took for granted.
And often makes them forget that miserable creature that longed with all their heart to be an adult, or if they do look back it is DOWN at their under-18 selves. And believe that under-18s really are inferior beings undeserving of full human rights.

Actually the political privilege of "adulthood" may corrupt even before have it. That might be its most destructive effect. It can make the first 16-18 years of life into a period of craven creeping to adults. Of pleasing and looking for approval, in which huge amounts of energy are devoted to working out how to impress those ones in power. Or how to become an impressive one oneself. Or in developing an automatic self-protecting practice of disagreeing with everything, because it seems the only way to avoid psychological bondage.
That is just one of the reasons why i believe rights for under-18s , especially the vote, are long overdue.

Last edited by ouinon on 20 Dec 2007, 2:41 pm, edited 4 times in total.

No answers.
Copy and paste old "arguments".
A deeply strange attitude toward earlier selves?

What on earth will happen, when you reach 1,000 posts, and get to set a "Custom rank"? I actually forgot about passing that landmark. The same, I am sure, applies to the huge majority of people, when they pass one or other of the "age" landmarks.

OTOH, I did manage to commit several offences on the evening of the day I passed my driving test. (Actually, they were all for one event: "parking at night, without lights, facing the wrong way, within the limits of a pedestrian crossing".)

It probably was me as I know I have argued for freedoms but against the notion of a "right".


Corrupted? The only evidence I see of this is college kids getting drunk or holding crazy protests and heck, teenagers get drunk too and college kids, very rarely protest or vote. Heck, most of the privileges of adulthood aren't used and the ones that are can hardly be unbundled anyway.

That is a hard one to argue, especially given that younger people are more politically liberal than older people which may actually indicate that they are more sympathetic than those who are older. Not only that but the idea of withdrawing political powers into an elite few is less of an idea of youth and more of an idea that can be drawn from work by economist Bryan Caplan on the knowledge of voters compared to the consensus of the knowledge of experts. To be honest though, this argument does not prove anything about the wrongness of the thoughts of the newly changed individuals as we have not proven that bitterness or lack of sympathy lead to bad things.

So? Youths are inferior beings on the average or median. I already proved that in order for them to not be inferior they would have to be either more intelligent or knowledgeable and there is no evidence for either and even evidence of the opposite. I never said I didn't want to be an adult when I was younger, I always longed to be an adult but it wasn't rights that made me feel like I wasn't an adult so much as the fact that I really wasn't equal to an adult because of internal and external factors more so than political factors.

The first 16-18 years are bound to be a period of craven creeping anyway. The issues of self-image are cultural, not political. Even if we gave youths the rights to run away and establish themselves on their own, it is very unlikely that they would take advantage of it.

Yes, and it hardly seems to be a very good reason. Especially on giving them the right to vote.