For Mature Audiences Only

American Thinker ^ | July 21, 2009 | Randy Fardal

[El Gato]

I just told my wife, with a Doctorate in Education, about this information. She said, yea, I’ve only known about that for 15 years or so. (She got her doctorate, 20 years ago, after spending about 10 years in the classroom, and a couple of years writing educational materials.).

[mountainbunny]

I would make an exception to the law if a 17 year old was in the military, yes.

Otherwise: you’d be simultaneously arguing that the soldier is mature enough to serve and die at 17, but not old enough to cast a ballot... and how can that be true?

[mountainbunny]

I think there should be a higher minimum age for all offices, from the presidency on down. Not so much because of brain maturity, but because if you can't get into politics until you are 40 years old you have to have a life before you become a politician.

That sounds like an excellent idea. Wow. The implications are staggering.

[Tainan]

“Endless Adolescence”...perfect description

[Tainan]

If he could only remember his name....IMO, one of the best albums ever made. "Cowboy Movie" alone seals the deal.

(I know the actual title is slightly different)

[wardaddy]

Cowboy Movie was a great song.

I can remember when Long Time Gone was an anthem for my generation
*we were naive

[neverdem]

An early indicator of the onset of senility is registering as a Democrat which can be corrected if caught in time.

LOL!

[fr_freak]

Otherwise: you’d be simultaneously arguing that the soldier is mature enough to serve and die at 17, but not old enough to cast a ballot... and how can that be true?

First, I originally suggested veterans, not active duty. This should mean anyone who has done one full term of service. If they are active again afterward, they qualify.

Next, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a 17 year old is mature enough to fight at 17 but not to vote, because they are two entirely different things. If there is one thing 17 year olds know how to do, it is fight. But how many of them have the wisdom and experience to understand which way the country should go on an issue? Hell, even the US military doesn't put its trust into a 17 year old enlistee right away. He starts out as a private (depending on the branch) and basically does whatever he is told to do. He doesn't get to go around helping to make decisions until he has earned his stripes. The country is the same way, but on a grander scale.

[GeronL]

Excellent article after all the psycholoical stuff...

[GeronL]

“Virtually no one ‘wises up’ and becomes a Leftist”

Arlen Specter and Jim Jeffords come to mind.

That's more like senility

[mountainbunny]

Next, it is perfectly reasonable to say that a 17 year old is mature enough to fight at 17 but not to vote, because they are two entirely different things. If there is one thing 17 year olds know how to do, it is fight. But how many of them have the wisdom and experience to understand which way the country should go on an issue?

The wisdom comes when it comes time to decide whether or not to serve and possibly die. If the 17 year old (substitute 18 year old, per the article), is too childish to understand voting, then I would argue that they are too immature and childish to comprehend the weight of their decision to join in the first place.

Being physically capable of fighting is one thing. Being mentally capable is another. Soldiers need both. If they have both, let them vote.

[fr_freak]

Being physically capable of fighting is one thing. Being mentally capable is another. Soldiers need both. If they have both, let them vote.

Yes, and very few of them arrive at basic training with both capabilities. The military takes them, shocks them for months and drills them daily just to get them to where they are soldier enough to do their jobs. Then, afterward, if God forbid they should go into combat, that's when they REALLY learn to fight. It does not happen the moment you make the decision to sign up. It happens months or years later. That is why veterans: yes, newbies: no.

[misanthrope]

Marking to read more later.

[FreedomPoster]

I’d modify that to taxpayers and veterans. See my tagline.

[FreedomPoster]

They didn’t become Leftistss, they just embraced truth in labeling.

[timm22]

I think you might be misunderstanding my point. The issue isn't whether 18 year olds are capable of fighting, or whether they will mature after having served in the military. The key question is whether an 18 year old is mature enough to decide to sign up for the military in the first place.

In our society we do not accord minors the same rights as adults. We restrict their ability to purchase firearms, to view adult material, and to hold public office. We enact laws that make it illegal for minors to have sex with adults, even if it is consensual. We do this is because we recognize that minors, for the most part, do not have the capability to responsibly and intelligently exercise those rights.

We exempt minors from many responsibilities as well. Minors are often sentenced differently than adults or even exempted from punishment entirely (if they are young enough). Courts usually will not enforce a contract against a minor if the minor chooses to repudiate the contract, even if the minor was capable of performing. The reason we give them such light treatment on these responsibilities is the same reason we do not accord them the same rights as adults. We recognize that it would be unfair to hold someone to these social obligations when they are too immature and too inexperienced to know what they really entail.

Of all the "contracts" a person can enter, probably the most serious is an enlistment contract. At a minimum, that decision amounts to signing away most of one's freedom for several years and undergoing changes that will stay with the enlistee for the rest of his life. If he is deployed to a combat zone, he will see humanity at its worse. He may have to make very hard moral choices that will haunt him for the rest of his life. In the worst case scenario, a person's decision to enlist could lead to a gruesome early death.

We allow most 18 year olds to make that decision on their own. And this is before they've done any "growing up" in basic training.

The decision to enlist is a lot more important than the decision to buy a car or to take out a mortgage. If we only enforce those contracts against competent adults, then surely we could only enforce an enlistment contract against a competent adult as well.

Right now, if someone makes the oath of enlistment at age 18, they are legally obligated to fulfill it. In other words, the law says that an 18 year old is competent enough to make what may be the most important decision of their life.

If we say that any random 18 year old is competent enough to be held to an oath of enlistment, with all the serious risks and consequences involved, how can we say he is not competent enough to vote?