go with Robert Heinlein's "veteran only" voting from Starship Troopers.
yhea. # 56 reply
Posted on 07/21/2009 12:07:21 AM PDT by neverdem
I think a good argument can be made that 18 year old's are closer to being children then they are to being adults. Of course, we don't allow children to enlist. Not even if the child wants to, and not even if we think a stint in the military would be good for the child. If 18 year old's really *are* kids then the minimum enlistment age should be raised.
If 18 year old's are not wise enough to help choose our elected leaders, nor even wise enough to be allowed to buy a beer, how could they be competent enough to sign several years of their life away to Uncle Sam ?
Did you ever consider how the word infantry was derived? If the government needs warm young bodies, it will get them, either willingly or not. They should have the right to vote and drink whatever they want.
Military personnel from 18 to 21 have usually been around a lot more than a lot of people older than them.
I would have much more trust in the voting savvy and political decisions of a 20 year old in the military than the average 25 year old that has never been in.
That is why the military overwhelming votes republican.
Who is "they"? Everyone of enlistment age or just those who are actually serving?
Active duty and reserve component personnel of the U.S. Armed Forces should be able to vote.
Alcohol drinking should be allowed to return to 18 years old for being legally permissible as a separate matter.
The Broken Window Fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Directly applies to what usurper Marxist Obama and the criminal and insane Congress are doing right now.
Why not all people of enlistment age? The law says that a typical 18 year old has the maturity to decide, on his own, to sign away several years of his life fighting for his country. How can we then change the law to say he lacks the maturity to give his largely inconsequential vote in an election? That seems wrong to me, both morally and as a matter of common sense.
If a typical 18 year old enlists and then changes his mind once his first deployment comes up, we don't just give him a pass. It doesn't matter if he says, "Hey, I was just a kid and I didn't know what I was getting into. I hadn't experienced life enough yet. I was too naive." Rightly or wrongly, we hold that as he was signing the dotted line he was old enough to be held to his very grave promise.
But when another typical 18 year old wants to give his voice on who will represent him in Congress, we are supposed to say "Sorry, you're just a kid and you don't know what you are doing. You haven't experienced life enough yet. You're too naive."
Maybe 18 really is too young for both. I just don't see how someone can be mature enough to enlist but not mature enough to vote.
The government may like such a double standard because it makes their job easier, but as citizens we are supposed to make the government do what is right, not what is easy.
The government may like such a double standard because it makes their job easier, but as citizens we are supposed to make the government do what is right, not what is easy.
If you have to fight, then might makes right. It's that simple. Veterans learn a great deal of maturity. In our history, in the organisation of militia units many of the officers were elected by their men.
Is there any principled reason we should not let 16 year old's enlist with parental permission?
I'm sure there are practical reasons this might not be a good idea...younger recruits might be too weak to fight, too hard to train, etc. But if those obstacles were not present, and assuming there is no national emergency, do you believe it would be acceptable for the government to allow under-17 minors to enlist in the military?
Twenty-one or older and a property owner, a veteran, or active duty military.
I'd consider Fire/Rescue/EMS under 21 as well.
People who have responsibilities tend to take responsibility seriously.
If it was just a "Property owner" the Acorns would be buying up sections of desert and deeding them out by the square inch for free...
With a square mile of land, they could register everyone in the country and a century worth of dead folks, too.
I want even grunts to have a high school diploma.
Chemicals That Eased One Woe Worsen Another global warming
Reid green-lights divisive gun vote Comment# 20 has a list of senators up for reelection in 2010. Comment# 23 has my email to Gillibrand. Those URLs are the senators addresses.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
That seems more like a pragmatic obstacle than a principled one.
Assuming that wasn't an issue (maybe some 16 year old was able to graduate early) is there any moral reason you wouldn't want him to enlist?
What morality or principle concerns you? Young kids get killed in sports and accidents all the time.
Thanks for the ping!
yhea. # 56 reply
BTW, although seventeen year olds can join a service with their parents permission, Congress wrote a law in WWII, IIRC, that they can’t be deployed overseas until they are eighteen.
It was lowered due to the draft, and for no other reason I have ever heard.
It was reasoned that if you are mature enough to sacrifice your life for our great nation, you were old enough to vote. Additionally, it was reasoned that if you were deemed mature enough to serve and possibly die, you were mature enough to choose those who might send you to your fate.
I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.