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.