Ron:
You seem to be saying that people below a certain age don't possess the same rights as those above that age, which implies that, as was once said of blacks and women, they're not fully human. Am I understanding you correctly?
Dear Michael;
Nope, Starchild said anyone should be allowed to get married at any
age based on being fully independent and responsible for their own
affairs. As I pointed out how many teenagers do you know who are in
this capacity??? I also asked everyone to consider what you were
like as a teenager and were you fully independent and responsible
for your own affairs???
Nowhere was there any mention of blacks and women NOT being fully
independent and responsible for their own affairs. Nowhere was there
any mention of Blacks and Women not being human.
Where the heck did you dredge that up from???
The age restriction on teenage marriages is an equal oppportunity
restriction and not based on race,creed,color,sex, sexual prefernces
etc etc etc etc. And I also said exceptions could apply at anytime.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Acree, Michael" <acreem@o...>
wrote:
Ron:
You seem to be saying that people below a certain age don't
possess the same rights as those above that age, which implies that,
as was once said of blacks and women, they're not fully human. Am I
understanding you correctly?
From: Ronald Getty [mailto:tradergroupe@y…]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 3:30 PM
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed
Contributor: Joining the Debate but Missing the Point
Dear Starchild;
Try to define legally independent and responsible for their own
affairs when talking to a teenager. Good Luck! While there are some
teenagers who are very adult at a young age the majority just plain
ain't. This is why I believe there should be some minimal age
restriction arbitrary as it is at 18. Exceptions to the rule can be
applied for at anytime.
A question - not just for Starchild but everyone out there.
If it isn't to painful to think about - what were you like as a
15 - 16 - 17 year old teenager? Anything approaching legally
independent and responsible for your own affairs??? Whoo
Hoo!!!!!
Ron Getty
SF LibertarianStarchild <sfdreamer@e...> wrote:
Or age, I would say, as long as the individuals involved are
legally
independent and responsible for their own affairs.
<<< Starchild >>>
> From: "Ronald Getty" <tradergroupe@y...>
>> Any two people 18 years of age or older can get married. I do
not
> believe there should be any distinction or discrimination or
> dissension because of sex. <
>
> In addition, no prohibition because of number of individuals
wishing
> to marry, e.g., polygamy.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Click HereClick Here
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=274551.4550177.5761904.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=:HM/A=2019528/rand=370
935768>
_____
Yahoo! Groups Links
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos
<Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos;
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:lpsf-discuss-
unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos; .
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Ron Getty suggested that anyone over 18 should be allowed to get married,
and that triggered one of Mike Acree's personal top causes: age discrimination.
It's a tricky issue. A 10-year-old is certainly a human being, and should
have full human rights. But are they responsible enough to exercise those
rights? With an adult, we say that they take the consequences for their
own actions. But what if a 10-year-old wants to go play with loaded
firearms in the town square, and their parents don't want them to? Or if
the 10-year-old wants to drink Drano?
I suggest a compromise. Everyone, at age 18, is responsible for
themselves. Some may be incompetent at that age; it will be up to private
charity (possible parents and friends, possibly shelters and soup kitchens)
to care for those people. However, before age 18, any person can apply to
a court for recognition of majority; if they can demonstrate maturity equal
to that of an average 18-year-old (which really is not that hard), then
they become legally responsible for their own actions. That also means
that their parents are no longer obligated to care for them; they certainly
may continue to do so, but if the child is starving, the parents are not
liable for neglect.
The default threshold can be argued; 16 might make sense too. But I really
don't think most 10-year-olds are truly capable of making responsible
decisions in their own self-interest. The taekwon do students I have of
that age frequently have difficulty making even short-term rational decisions.
~Chris
- --
Chris Maden, Libertarian for California State Assembly
District 12, San Francisco, 2004
Individual Freedom - Personal Responsibility - Prosperity for All
If we are going to ask this question, then to be fair, it seems we should also ask: Is every person over 18 that you know fully independent and responsible for your own affairs?
-- Steve
Dear Steve;
Nope no way does everyone over the age of 18.
At some in time you have to say someone has to start accepting
responsibilty for their own affairs. As the Libertarian philosophy
so aptly states.
18 IS arbitrary, it's capricious and most likely doesn't have any
bearing. But some timeline has to staked out so there will be the
presumption the individual has reached a point when they can be
considered to be a fully functioning adult able to handle their own
affairs.
Is 18 the right point the wrong point? Beats the heck out of me. But
it seems to be a somewhat societal point where the fledging spreads
their wings and flies from the nest. Can it happen earlier? YES!
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Steve Dekorte <steve@d...>
wrote:
> Nope, Starchild said anyone should be allowed to get married at
any
> age based on being fully independent and responsible for their
own
> affairs. As I pointed out how many teenagers do you know who are
in
Would it also be appropriate to put an *upper* limit on being independent/responsible at the average age of the onset of senility? Say, 80 years old? Above which, the individual would lose the right to vote, to drive, etc, just as young people are not allowed allowed to do these things.
Note: this is a general question meant to explore the issue and is not necessarily contradicting to your points. I agree that choosing a age may be the most practical way at the moment to deal with this issue.
-- Steve
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Would it also be appropriate to put an *upper* limit on being
independent/responsible at the average age of the onset of senility?
This is a good question, and a relevant one (given the issues currently
surrounding elderly drivers). One significant difference is that, prior to
dementia, an adult goes through a period of full facility and can or should
make plans to deal with dementia. However, this is offset by the fact that
one common symptom of Alzheimer's disease is paranoia; those attempting to
point out your diminished faculty are trying to trap you, control you,
steal your inheritance, etc.
I very much dislike the idea of prior restraint, however, whether it's for
drunk driving or senile driving.
So here's a further proposal: all people have rights. However, not
everyone is capable of exercising those rights. The legal presumption from
birth should be that an individual is not capable of exercising their
rights; they become legally responsible on their 18th (or 16th?) birthday,
or sooner if they so declare in a sworn statement before a court that
adjudges them fully aware of what they are declaring. The legal
presumption from majority is that one is responsible; however, it may be a
court's finding in a criminal or civil case that an individual has harmed
others or come recklessly close to doing so through diminished faculty, and
may be held to be no longer capable.
This is actually fairly close to current law concerning incompetency,
except in this case there has to be actual harm demonstrated (and no,
voting Green doesn't count). People don't have to be actually injured or
property damaged, but if Grandpa has driven off the road repeatedly, you
don't have to wait for him to actually hit somebody.
~Chris
- --
"Reality is a pie of which I do not require another slice."
~ Shelley Winters, "Scary Go Round" by John Allison
Freelance text nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
Steve,
Good question! Perhaps a law by which people could formally challenge a person's maturity, and if they were deemed to be no longer fully mature, be subjected to annual tests to determine which rights they could still keep?
Seems highly impractical and potentially very unfair, but it does help put the issue of discriminating against young people in a slightly different perspective.
<<< Starchild >>>
Yes, it's interesting that the perspective of one making rules for others changes when making rules for themselves. (as such a shift violates the most basic definitions of fairness)
-- Steve
Dear Steve;
Yes some states have enacted old age driver laws as ana example. There are of course numerous state laws on the books for those who have become senile and need a caretaker. Sometimes an upeper limit is also advisable for those who become physically and mentally incapiciated so they are incapable of being fully functional and able to handle thgeir own affairs.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Steve Dekorte <steve@...> wrote:
18 IS arbitrary, it's capricious and most likely doesn't have any
bearing. But some timeline has to staked out so there will be the
presumption the individual has reached a point when they can be
considered to be a fully functioning adult able to handle their own
affairs.
Would it also be appropriate to put an *upper* limit on being
independent/responsible at the average age of the onset of senility?
Say, 80 years old? Above which, the individual would lose the right to
vote, to drive, etc, just as young people are not allowed allowed to do
these things.
Note: this is a general question meant to explore the issue and is not
necessarily contradicting to your points. I agree that choosing a age
may be the most practical way at the moment to deal with this issue.
-- Steve