Oh Joy it must be time near election time again

[sbpyro]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/city_region/breaking_news/2006/05/attorney_genera.html


Store owners please check for age otherwise Tom Reilly is gonna shut you down.

[snoopay700]

God dude, that's all me and my friends have due to lack of money and also it's all we can play at my friend's house. I'm betting that guy's a conservative, they always screw up crap like this and ruin everything.

[bentothejam1n]

lets not get into politics, snoop

[snoopay700]

lets not get into politics, snoop
I know, i know, i shouldn't have said anything about what his views might be, but people like that piss me off.

[bentothejam1n]

yea i do agree with you there, that was a dick move by mr reilly

[teufelhunden]

OH HORRORS SOMEONE ENFORCING THE LAW OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

foolish children.

[OneEyedPimp]

OH HORRORS SOMEONE ENFORCING THE LAW OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

foolish children.
:nono:


You sir are lucky that I am not allowed to converse politics in here.

[teufelhunden]

:nono:


You sir are lucky that I am not allowed to converse politics in here.


Because then you'd look dumb when the adults with common sense found the thread?

[OneEyedPimp]

Because then you'd look dumb when the adults with common sense found the thread?

I am not the one resorting to preemptive attack on the other's argument before it has even fully played out.

[teufelhunden]

I am not the one resorting to preemptive attack on the other's argument before it has even fully played out.

No, you're the one skirting argument by telling me I'm lucky you can't have it.

[m-a-r-k-7]

Yeah, BB guns are sooooooo like real guns.

[paint magnet]

Wait, so you have to be 18 to buy a BB gun, but only 16 to drive a car?

Last time I checked, a whole lot more people have been killed in car accidents (or intentional homicides) than who were shot to death with BB guns. What am I missing here?

Also, it is generally assumed that the purchaser is 18 or older due to the fact that that is generally the minimum age at which one can acquire a credit card to purchase items on the internet. Why the need for age verification?

[OneEyedPimp]

No, you're the one skirting argument by telling me I'm lucky you can't have it.

Fine: Prove that it is a law that they are enforcing. Namely one that has some kind of legal backing. Once you prove that, you have an argument, until then we will have to wait until the adults to come along and decide who is being mature, as you did not include yourself amongst them.

[warbeak2099]

Bingo, there are a lot bigger problems out there. The morons in office choose to go after stupid crap like this because they're more interested in looking like they're helping the community. And snoopay, the conservatives are not the ones going after guns and look alikes in this country. For the most parts, that is an issure supported by the liberal Democrats. Not that I agree with the conservative side where anyone should be able to purchase a rocket launcher at their nearest Walmart, but you've got it bassackwards.

Here's a situation where more moderate laws should be enforced. Not liberal or conservative, moderate. Yes, children under 18 must have parental consent to purchase these products. Then the blame can go where it really should be. The parents. The airsoft community should not be punished. Instead, parents who fail to monitor their children's activity should be punished. This society is really veering away from the whole notion of responsibility and acountability. When you drop the ball, you should pay the consequences. Excuses and finger pointing seem to reign supreme instead. I wonder where we get that from... oh yeah our politicians and leaders. Yup, I'm moving to Switzerland.

[OneEyedPimp]

Bingo, there are a lot bigger problems out there. The morons in office choose to go after stupid crap like this because they're more interested in looking like they're helping the community. And snoopay, the conservatives are not the ones going after guns and look alikes in this country. For the most parts, that is an issure supported by the liberal Democrats. Not that I agree with the conservative side where anyone should be able to purchase a rocket launcher at their nearest Walmart, but you've got it bassackwards.

Well, conservatives dont believe in gun freedom. They believe that only certain ones should be allowed, while others are to be outlawed. The two major political parties are slowely drifting towards eachother, but they will not meet in the center but on the bottom. For the record, I have no problem with people buying rockets or AA guns at their local Wal-mart, the only thing that concerns me is if they use it in a way that violates others. This is what is wrong with our society, we preemptively judge everyone before they even do anything. I mean what does it matter if someone has, say, a nuke if they dont use it for other's bodily harm?


Here's a situation where more moderate laws should be enforced. Not liberal or conservative, moderate. Yes, children under 18 must have parental consent to purchase these products. Then the blame can go where it really should be. The parents. The airsoft community should not be punished. Instead, parents who fail to monitor their children's activity should be punished. This society is really veering away from the whole notion of responsibility and acountability. When you drop the ball, you should pay the consequences. Excuses and finger pointing seem to reign supreme instead. I wonder where we get that from... oh yeah our politicians and leaders. Yup, I'm moving to Switzerland.

Here is a question: what makes someone under 18 somehow sub-human to someone above that age? It is morally right to let sub-18 year olds to be just as human as post-18 year olds, as such they get punished in the same sense when they do wrong as someone over 18. Seriously: people need to stop worrying about what other people might do and more about what they do.

P.S. I think I will join you in Switzerland.

[teufelhunden]

Fine: Prove that it is a law that they are enforcing. Namely one that has some kind of legal backing. Once you prove that, you have an argument, until then we will have to wait until the adults to come along and decide who is being mature, as you did not include yourself amongst them.
MA Code Chapter 269: Chapter 12a: Air rifles; sale to minors


Whoever sells to a minor under the age of eighteen or whoever, not being the parent, guardian or adult teacher or instructor, furnishes to a minor under the age of eighteen an air rifle or so-called BB gun, shall be punished by a fine of not less than fifty nor more than two hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months.


Chapter 269 Section 12b: Air rifles; possession by minors; shooting


No minor under the age of eighteen shall have an air rifle or so-called BB gun in his possession while in any place to which the public has a right of access unless he is accompanied by an adult or unless he is the holder of a sporting or hunting license and has on his person a permit from the chief of police of the town in which he resides granting him the right of such possession. No person shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or so-called BB gun into, from or across any street, alley, public way or railroad or railway right of way, and no minor under the age of eighteen shall discharge a BB shot, pellet or other object from an air rifle or BB gun unless he is accompanied by an adult or is the holder of a sporting or hunting license. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, and the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall be confiscated. Upon a conviction of a violation of this section the air rifle or BB gun or other weapon shall, by the written authority of the court, be forwarded to the colonel of the state police, who may dispose of said article in the same manner as prescribed in section ten.

I was unable to find when the law was enacted, but one can reasonably assume it wasn't put on the books yesterday. Its legal backing comes along the same lines as that of such laws as those which restrict the age to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, spray paint, etc.

[OneEyedPimp]

I was unable to find when the law was enacted, but one can reasonably assume it wasn't put on the books yesterday. Its legal backing comes along the same lines as that of such laws as those which restrict the age to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, spray paint, etc.

Which in this country's founding has no legal backing. You are impling that those people, those under 18, are sub-human by denying them the rights guareenteed to those of older age. This is morally wrong which falls into the same catagory as abortions.

[nippinout]

Which in this country's founding has no legal backing. You are impling that those people, those under 18, are sub-human by denying them the rights guareenteed to those of older age. This is morally wrong which falls into the same catagory as abortions.

Oh dear. IBL

Let's allow newborns the right to vote?

[OneEyedPimp]

Oh dear. IBL

Let's allow newborns the right to vote?

...and why not? When do you define someone as becomming human? I define it at inception, any other date raises the question as to when someone actually becomes a human, because we all know how people diverge in opinion.

And what does IBL mean?

It should also be noted that it has to be a concious decision by the person, not the parent saying their five month old wants to vote for someone and then his parents vote for him. That is a no-no.

[nippinout]

...and why not? When do you define someone as becomming human? I define it at inception, any other date raises the question as to when someone actually becomes a human, because we all know how people diverge in opinion.

And what does IBL mean?

You cannot make sound decisions as a child. That is why you cannot vote, smoke, or buy firearms until you are at least 18.

This is not about defining what a human being is. This is about law and order. Laws do not exist to treat those younger than 18 as sub-human.

If I were a politican in your world, I would offer every 'human' candy and ban vegetables in school lunches. Guaranteed victory in your foolish land of ponies and make-believe.

[SCpoloRicker]

I hope to God this is trolling...

/doubtfull

[teufelhunden]

Nobody is treating younger people as sub human. The laws are in place for the protection of the minor children and society around them. Look it up; younger people, even though they may appear to be adults generally do not have a fully developed risk processing system yet. In simple terms for you, that's why kids seem to do more dumb things than adults. That covers things like firearms and BB guns.

Then, go ahead and look at the drinking age; it's not just arbitrary [well, at 18 it wasn't, at 21 it is, but, I digress]. The liver is not fully developed to the point of being able to process high quantities of alcohol until late adolescence; since the law can not feasibly provide for testing every single person to see if their liver is functioning or their brain can handle computing risks or etc, they figure out the point where most people will be set and ready to go and make that the age for the law.



You're 16. Of course you believe you can do anything that adults can do because you're a teenager and teenagers know best. I've been there, and looking back.. I know I didn't. Maybe if you remove your head from your rectum when you grow up a little, you'll figure it out too.

[OneEyedPimp]

You cannot make sound decisions as a child. That is why you cannot vote, smoke, or buy firearms until you are at least 18.

This is not about defining what a human being is. This is about law and order. Laws do not exist to treat those younger than 18 as sub-human.

If I were a politican in your world, I would offer every 'human' candy and ban vegetables in school lunches. Guaranteed victory in your foolish land of ponies and make-believe.

Problem is in my world you would not be able to do that as there would be no public school system to ban them in; a politician has no control over the private sector.

This debate is about when you become a human by definition. It is all a matter of opinions, and as long as those opinions diverge it is wrong to have one law governing all. It is just YOUR opinion that younger people can not make the same decisions as those that are older.

If you think about it, law and order could be preserved to a greater degree if you removed age laws and only punished people for what they did wrong to others, not themselves. In the end though, my view on this stems from taxes. I do not want my stolen income to be spent on stopping children from doing what they are guarenteed to do(provided they make a concious decision on the matter).

[OneEyedPimp]

I hope to God this is trolling...

/doubtfull

No, these are my political views. I did not want to argue them, but I was provoked.

[nippinout]

No, these are my political views. I did not want to argue them, but I was provoked.

OH NO! HE WAS PROVOKED!

No, your logic is flawed.

Spock would feel ashamed, if he allowed himself to experience emotions.

[OneEyedPimp]

Nobody is treating younger people as sub human. The laws are in place for the protection of the minor children and society around them. Look it up; younger people, even though they may appear to be adults generally do not have a fully developed risk processing system yet. In simple terms for you, that's why kids seem to do more dumb things than adults. That covers things like firearms and BB guns.

I think your definition of sub-human is different. I.E. sub-human means being denied the rights enjoyed by the rest. The age laws are doing just that. Again on the age thing, YOUR opinion. I really dont care what others do, so long as it does not interfere with me.


Then, go ahead and look at the drinking age; it's not just arbitrary [well, at 18 it wasn't, at 21 it is, but, I digress]. The liver is not fully developed to the point of being able to process high quantities of alcohol until late adolescence; since the law can not feasibly provide for testing every single person to see if their liver is functioning or their brain can handle computing risks or etc, they figure out the point where most people will be set and ready to go and make that the age for the law.

While I assume that is true about the liver, who is to say that I need to be protected for my own safety? Seriously, what if they moved the smoking age to 79 because some survey showed that that was when the lungs started to deteriorate, so you can't do much damage by smoking? Wouldent you be pissed?(not implying you smoke of course)


You're 16. Of course you believe you can do anything that adults can do because you're a teenager and teenagers know best. I've been there, and looking back.. I know I didn't. Maybe if you remove your head from your rectum when you grow up a little, you'll figure it out too.

Yup, I am 16. Pretty proud of my youth too. My head is up my rectum as much as yours is. If given the choice to smoke, drink, etc I would not simply because I do not wish to participate is such activities(not even when I am "of age"). I simply argue these view points for my fellow man to make his own descision, his God-given right.

And isn't it weird that age laws are a rather recent development?

[OneEyedPimp]

OH NO! HE WAS PROVOKED!

No, your logic is flawed.

Spock would feel ashamed, if he allowed himself to experience emotions.

Whatever helps you. My logic is flawed in YOUR opinion, not mine.

And I am a little too young to get the Spock reference. ;)

[nippinout]

I think your definition of sub-human is different. I.E. sub-human means being denied the rights enjoyed by the rest. The age laws are doing just that. Again on the age thing, YOUR opinion. I really dont care what others do, so long as it does not interfere with me.



While I assume that is true about the liver, who is to say that I need to be protected for my own safety? Seriously, what if they moved the smoking age to 79 because some survey showed that that was when the lungs started to deteriorate, so you can't do much damage by smoking? Wouldent you be pissed?(not implying you smoke of course)



Yup, I am 16. Pretty proud of my youth too. My head is up my rectum as much as yours is. If given the choice to smoke, drink, etc I would not simply because I do not wish to participate is such activities(not even when I am "of age"). I simply argue these view points for my fellow man to make his own descision, his God-given right.

And isn't it weird that age laws are a rather recent development?


Rights being denied simply based upon age is wrong to you?

Let's allow 8 year olds to have sex with 40 year old men!

How about I am allowed to legally sell 4 year olds porn!

6 year olds, you can now drive!

15 year olds, that learners permit is now a drivers license. You can have a blood alcohol content of .08 and drive all hours of the night!

Your logic is flawed beyond belief.

[nippinout]

Whatever helps you. My logic is flawed in YOUR opinion, not mine.

And I am a little too young to get the Spock reference. ;)

A person's ability to do something should be limited to more than "As long as it doesn't affect anyone else".

That attitude is why I don't like having to pay insurance for drivers who are complete idiots. That's why I don't like having to pay health insurance to subsidize heavy smokers who do not exercise or eat a healthy diet.

Actuarial Scientists are smart people.

Actions affect everyone.

[OneEyedPimp]

Rights being denied simply based upon age is wrong to you?

Let's allow 8 year olds to have sex with 40 year old men!

How about I am allowed to legally sell 4 year olds porn!

6 year olds, you can now drive!

15 year olds, that learners permit is now a drivers license. You can have a blood alcohol content of .08 and drive all hours of the night!

Your logic is flawed beyond belief.

You may think it is flawed, but nothing above bothers me provided that the only harm is self-inflicted. If the 8 year old conscents, so what?

You would be kind of weird with 4 year old child porn.

If the 6 year old doesnt cause boldily or property harm to others, so what?

Same argument with the 15 year old.

I sound really bad with specific examples like that but my basic political philosophy allows anything provided that you do not infringe on other's rights. You can also look at it this way: there are very few Libertarians out there, so none of these changes are likely to happen in my lifetime, and I am younger. Then again, I am a little bit more "radical" than most libertarians, leaning more towards a government system that is as close as humanly possibly to anarchy that you can get while still having order.

[OneEyedPimp]

A person's ability to do something should be limited to more than "As long as it doesn't affect anyone else".

That attitude is why I don't like having to pay insurance for drivers who are complete idiots. That's why I don't like having to pay health insurance to subsidize heavy smokers who do not exercise or eat a healthy diet.

Actuarial Scientists are smart people.

Actions affect everyone.

You may notice, that I have NO problem with the private sector. I only have a problem with laws preventing the heavy smokers from doing just what his name implies. If you dont like the rates, don't pay them and just pay for when you go to the doctor out of your own pocket. Pretty simple.

[nippinout]

http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2006211746,00.jpg

That's a chain smoking 11 year old that got pregnant on a night of drinking. link (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006210699,00.html)

Your logic is flawed.

Sheesh, why don't we change the minimum age requirements for elected office! Cotton candy and video games for every man, woman, and child is my Presidential campaign promise.

"VOTE NIP IN '08!"
"WHEN IN DOUBT, PULL IT OUT!"
"SCHOOL SUCKS, JUST LIKE MY OPPONENT!"

[nippinout]

You may notice, that I have NO problem with the private sector. I only have a problem with laws preventing the heavy smokers from doing just what his name implies. If you dont like the rates, don't pay them and just pay for when you go to the doctor out of your own pocket. Pretty simple.

Insurance isn't there because I like to give the insurance companies lots of money.

I pay them because it allows me to pay for small stuff, but when I need to have brain surgery, I know that I won't have to throw the church bake sale to end all bake sales. You lack real world experience, and it shows.

I'm not trying to say that it's the government's job to be your boss/mom. But it's there because there are a lot of idiots that make idiotic decisions solely because of their age and immaturity.

[OneEyedPimp]

Insurance isn't there because I like to give the insurance companies lots of money.

I pay them because it allows me to pay for small stuff, but when I need to have brain surgery, I know that I won't have to throw the church bake sale to end all bake sales. You lack real world experience, and it shows.

I'm not trying to say that it's the government's job to be your boss/mom. But it's there because there are a lot of idiots that make idiotic decisions solely because of their age and immaturity.

On the contrary, you are making the government just that, our nanny. You just need to stop worrying about others. If you dont want your kids to smoke, teach them not to, but dont make laws saying that someone elses can't[.]

[OneEyedPimp]

That's a chain smoking 11 year old that got pregnant on a night of drinking. link (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006210699,00.html)

Your logic is flawed.

Sheesh, why don't we change the minimum age requirements for elected office! Cotton candy and video games for every man, woman, and child is my Presidential campaign promise.

"VOTE NIP IN '08!"
"WHEN IN DOUBT, PULL IT OUT!"
"SCHOOL SUCKS, JUST LIKE MY OPPONENT!"

While I do feel sorry for that girl, it is not my, yours, or any one elses fault but her own, she made the decision. Not my problem. To imply that by giving her the option to do it is somehow my fault is also flawed. She did all this and it WAS illegal. Guess that negates the law.

[nippinout]

On the contrary, you are making the government just that, our nanny. You just need to stop worrying about others. If you dont want your kids to smoke, teach them not to, but dont make laws saying that someone elses can't[.]

Keeping 6 year olds away from porn and 15 year olds from having a blood alcohol content and driving at 4am is not the goverment being your nanny.


While I do feel sorry for that girl, it is not my, yours, or any one elses fault but her own, she made the decision. Not my problem. To imply that by giving her the option to do it is somehow my fault is also flawed. She did all this and it WAS illegal. Guess that negates the law.

You make no sense. Because she broke a law, the law is negated? I am not following you on that one.

I cannot find my factoids now (I can find them, I just don't want to dig them out of my crypt of old notes and texts) but a driver that ends up killing himself in an accident causes the rest of us a loss of about $3,000,000. That driver affects my wallet. That 11 year old girl affects my wallet.

[OneEyedPimp]

Keeping 6 year olds away from porn and 15 year olds from having a blood alcohol content and driving at 4am is not the goverment being your nanny.

Is so, as the definition of a nanny is a child's nurse.


You make no sense. Because she broke a law, the law is negated? I am not following you on that one.

I am sorry, what I meant was that she went ahead and smoked and got pregnant, despite the law being there. We pour money into stopping this and it goes and happens, granted that this is just one incidence. The old saying goes, "Kids will be Kids," even if being kids involves chain smoking, drinking, and getting pregnant, they will do it despite what barriers we put up to block them.


I cannot find my factoids now (I can find them, I just don't want to dig them out of my crypt of old notes and texts) but a driver that ends up killing himself in an accident causes the rest of us a loss of about $3,000,000. That driver affects my wallet. That 11 year old girl affects my wallet.

Don't worry, I know what facts you are talking about and the solution is pretty clear, just don't pay for it. If you want the dead drunk driver to pay for his fines, simply seize all of his property despite his will, therefore it should pay a good chunk of the bill, granted not all of it, but no system is perfect. If you don't want to pay for the girl, don't. Revoke welfare and social security. If she is under the same insurance program as you, you may have to pay for her, but then again insurance is just a commodity for if you need that brain surgery.

[Lohman446]

Here is a question: what makes someone under 18 somehow sub-human to someone above that age? It is morally right to let sub-18 year olds to be just as human as post-18 year olds, as such they get punished in the same sense when they do wrong as someone over 18. Seriously: people need to stop worrying about what other people might do and more about what they do.


Let me guess, your not 18. Because most adults remember how stupid we were when we were 18/19/20/21/22/23... Personally I am still waiting for the adult "smarts" to kick in here but thats another story. To protect those under 18 we do not consider you adults. This gives you time to learn. Also think of the credit card companies and other less than helpful soles that would let you enter into legally binding contracts with the general short sightedness of youth that would cost you severely as you got older. We also protect those under 18 from all but the most serious of laws that govern your actions. Theres a cost to these benefits that protects the safety of many. Its there for a reason, for many many reasons, lets not deny that.

[sbpyro]

Personally I am still waiting for the adult "smarts" to kick in here but thats another story.

Trust me that will never happen I'm bout to hit 30 and the adult "smarts" are still not there :)
I had no problems with him enforcing the laws about the sale of the markers to a minor.
My problem is he waited until now to start cracking down. By the way it is the liberals that want to diaarm America. This is Massachusetts we only have a handful of Republicans here. The problem I have with this was Kmart, Walmart, Dicks sporting goods, and sports authority have been selling bbguns, and paintball markers that are used in a majority of the vandalism did not get busted earlier. I do not wish to lose my equipment because some punk buys a marker from one of those stores and vandalizes my neighborhood and someone has seen that I have a paintball marker or 2. It is not like there is a way to trace a paintball back to the marker that fired it. I would also like to add it was very irresponsible for the paintball store that did get busted to sell to someone that age without a parent there.

[Arstron]

MA Code Chapter 269: Chapter 12a: Air rifles; sale to minors




Chapter 269 Section 12b: Air rifles; possession by minors; shooting



I was unable to find when the law was enacted, but one can reasonably assume it wasn't put on the books yesterday. Its legal backing comes along the same lines as that of such laws as those which restrict the age to purchase tobacco, alcohol, firearms, spray paint, etc.


So according to both the laws you just posted a minor can shoot a BB gun and a minor can purchase a BB gun. That is fine, so how did a minor purchase those BB guns online? With a credit card that could not be his own? He would have either stole the credit card or his parents made the purchase for him. You should go after the pron sites also saying its their fault he stole/his parents paid for their minor to view there sites. Your logic is flawed, using a credit card online is an age verification tool.

[shartley]

I will not get into the argument about laws and underage folks… but I will point out that using a “credit card” online is far from being an age verification tool. And if someone under the age of 18 uses a “credit card” online it does not have to be stolen or not their own.

My son, who is about to turn 17 has what “looks” like a credit card and can make online purchases if he wishes. Most bank accounts now days offer a Debit/Credit card which works either as a Debit card using your PIN numbers or as a Credit Card without them. The payment process is identical for a Debit/Credit card as with a standard Credit Card. And to get the bank account he only needed me or his mother to be on the account. But guess who’s name is on his card? His alone.

Online stores operate in a “good faith” manner. Most responsible online shops will post the laws concerning under age purchasing, but it is the customer who must make the ultimate choice. And if that person is indeed under the legal age to purchase an item they are committing fraud. A store is only obligated to make reasonable assurances they are selling to a legal buyer. This is much easier in the “real world” than online.

[Arstron]

I will not get into the argument about laws and underage folks… but I will point out that using a “credit card” online is far from being an age verification tool. And if someone under the age of 18 uses a “credit card” online it does not have to be stolen or not their own.

My son, who is about to turn 17 has what “looks” like a credit card and can make online purchases if he wishes. Most bank accounts now days offer a Debit/Credit card which works either as a Debit card using your PIN numbers or as a Credit Card without them. The payment process is identical for a Debit/Credit card as with a standard Credit Card. And to get the bank account he only needed me or his mother to be on the account. But guess who’s name is on his card? His alone.

Online stores operate in a “good faith” manner. Most responsible online shops will post the laws concerning under age purchasing, but it is the customer who must make the ultimate choice. And if that person is indeed under the legal age to purchase an item they are committing fraud. A store is only obligated to make reasonable assurances they are selling to a legal buyer. This is much easier in the “real world” than online.

I did not know that somone under the age of 18 could get a debit card. That does ruin everything I said, oh well just thought I would help.

[shartley]

I did not know that somone under the age of 18 could get a debit card. That does ruin everything I said, oh well just thought I would help.
No worries. :cheers:

[PumpPlayer]

Wow, we're sure breeding some well-developed 11-year-olds nowadays.
I can't remember any of the girls looking that physically mature when I was in 4th and 5th grade.

I remember being a teenager and I remember hating the age laws. In fact, I still do hate some of them. The drinking age is pure BS propagated by extremist neo-prohibition groups and permitted by the general public because most people don't drink. FWIW, I've been over 21 for quite some time now and I value that right very much. I still think there's a better solution than we have, especially in light of the problems caused by drinking in our youth. I think that a drinking age of 21 is part of the reason we have alcohol problems with our youth and that it serves to encourage a culture of control, against which the young will always rebel.



I don't think OneEyedPimp particularly knows exactly what he's for or against. I say that not to sound insulting but to open up a line of logic with the goal of showing why we set seemingly arbitrary ages to perform certain actions legally.

OEP is againt age laws because he feels that age is no reliable indication of maturity. I agree that age and maturity bear verey little correlation but the fact remains that we must still set some cutoff point. Using suffrance as an example, it's readily apparent that there are certain factors which are required before one can vote. Citizenship, of course, and I doubt anyone would argue with that requirement. Gender and race have been purged from the system as well as ownership of land. Another requirement is, supposedly, the ability to make a conscious, fully-informed decision. You can argue all you want as to when a human being gains that ability but the age of 18 isn't that bad of a benchmark. Another reason for the age is life expectancy and child mortality. It's not so much of an issue anymore, but 150 years ago when cholera, measles and various other maladies claimed roughly 1 in 3 children, it was a very big deal. The last has to do with self-sufficiency and social responsibility. Children dependant upon their parents have very little social responsibility. They don't pay taxes and, until their teenage years, can't even hold a job. Their sense of value in a leader is skewed because they don't have to pay for the cost of that leadership. There is a reason why the age of suffrance coicides with the age of taxation.


I said before that OEP is misguided in placing his criticism of the system. Like any young person, he is overwhelmed with rage when confronted with one simple phrase.

"Because I said so."

He sees age laws as being a state form of "because I said so". The perception is not unwarranted, but it is also not correct. I can go on and on regarding reasons for age laws, but others have summed it up quite well. Suffice to say that cognition and logic are the benchmarks and because there is no way to test for maturity, we must use age requirements as an approximation.



This goes both ways, of course. OEP claims that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception. I wonder if he knows the full reasoning and logic behind the argument, though. Is he saying that because he knows it in his heart to be true or is he simply repeating that which he has heard from another source (Parent, book, Church organization, etc.)? The young are always good for the dispensation of facts but logic generally does not accompany them.

I make no motion to call anyone unintelligent or even 'stupid', I simply challenge you to call your own bluff once in a while and examine your thoughts accordingly.


No one can accuse you of ignorance until you make a decision to stop learning. I advise you to never make that decision.

[OneEyedPimp]

Let me guess, your not 18. Because most adults remember how stupid we were when we were 18/19/20/21/22/23... Personally I am still waiting for the adult "smarts" to kick in here but thats another story. To protect those under 18 we do not consider you adults. This gives you time to learn. Also think of the credit card companies and other less than helpful soles that would let you enter into legally binding contracts with the general short sightedness of youth that would cost you severely as you got older. We also protect those under 18 from all but the most serious of laws that govern your actions. Theres a cost to these benefits that protects the safety of many. Its there for a reason, for many many reasons, lets not deny that.

Actually I am still 16. The problems that I have with age laws does not stem from my age, but rather my questioning the legality of them. Me, personally, when I get older I want my children to be able to make their own descisions without the government telling them no, despite if it is in "their best interests."

I dont expect many to agree with me, most don't. But age laws are a relatively recent development, so saying that they help is kindof backwards thinking in my opinion.

You may find my views radical, but they stem from my views on abortion. If you consider somone under 18 not an adult, you are putting them in a class that is sub-human by definition. By doing this you are saying that abortion is fine and more that someone under 18 is less, somehow, than that of someone over that age, and I am fundamentally against that.

But hey, mabye we should agree to disagree as none of us are going to change our opinions. But I can guarantee you that in 20 years, my views on the matter will be the same. Guarantee.

[PumpPlayer]

Not any more or less human. Different.

Men and women differ physiologically and, quite arguably, intellectually as well.
Health and life insurance costs and benefits are different for men than they are for women.
Is it somehow calling men less human by charging them more for life insurance because they're statistically more likely to die at a younger age? I don't think so.

When you can prove to me that a two-year-old has the intellectual capacity to match wits with me, then we'll give the two-year-old my job and let them take care of me. Sound cool?


You gotta draw the line somewhere and it might as well be on or around the age at which you graduate from High School.


EDIT: Careful with supporting relativism in all matters. Relativism has a tendancy to come around and bite you on the rear.

[OneEyedPimp]

I don't think OneEyedPimp particularly knows exactly what he's for or against. I say that not to sound insulting but to open up a line of logic with the goal of showing why we set seemingly arbitrary ages to perform certain actions legally.

Do so, as I have been arguing this for years. I honestly see no reason for age laws, as well as taxes, import laws, gun laws, driving laws, etc etc. I am against most laws out there not because they are necessarily wrong, but because we just waste money on them.


OEP is againt age laws because he feels that age is no reliable indication of maturity. I agree that age and maturity bear verey little correlation but the fact remains that we must still set some cutoff point. Using suffrance as an example, it's readily apparent that there are certain factors which are required before one can vote. Citizenship, of course, and I doubt anyone would argue with that requirement. Gender and race have been purged from the system as well as ownership of land. Another requirement is, supposedly, the ability to make a conscious, fully-informed decision. You can argue all you want as to when a human being gains that ability but the age of 18 isn't that bad of a benchmark. Another reason for the age is life expectancy and child mortality. It's not so much of an issue anymore, but 150 years ago when cholera, measles and various other maladies claimed roughly 1 in 3 children, it was a very big deal. The last has to do with self-sufficiency and social responsibility. Children dependant upon their parents have very little social responsibility. They don't pay taxes and, until their teenage years, can't even hold a job. Their sense of value in a leader is skewed because they don't have to pay for the cost of that leadership. There is a reason why the age of suffrance coicides with the age of taxation.

While taxation is the BIGGEST thing that I am against, I am not against age laws because of my age, but rather because there is no need for them. I just dont see the need of a nation-wide juristiction on age, the individual families should make that descision.



I said before that OEP is misguided in placing his criticism of the system. Like any young person, he is overwhelmed with rage when confronted with one simple phrase.

"Because I said so."

He sees age laws as being a state form of "because I said so". The perception is not unwarranted, but it is also not correct. I can go on and on regarding reasons for age laws, but others have summed it up quite well. Suffice to say that cognition and logic are the benchmarks and because there is no way to test for maturity, we must use age requirements as an approximation.

Why must we test for maturity? Should we have a test for maturity before you can vote? Before you can choose to move? Before you can buy certain drugs? Why, why, why?




This goes both ways, of course. OEP claims that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception. I wonder if he knows the full reasoning and logic behind the argument, though. Is he saying that because he knows it in his heart to be true or is he simply repeating that which he has heard from another source (Parent, book, Church organization, etc.)? The young are always good for the dispensation of facts but logic generally does not accompany them.

No, I know the full extent of the logic behind it. I formed it independently, if you can believe that. I also take it one step further, if inception is not the point at which life begins, then when is? At birth? At age 16? 18? 21? My logic goes as such: if restriction are placed on one group of individuals who are victims of their circumstances, they are sub-human and are treated as such.


I make no motion to call anyone unintelligent or even 'stupid', I simply challenge you to call your own bluff once in a while and examine your thoughts accordingly.


No one can accuse you of ignorance until you make a decision to stop learning. I advise you to never make that decision.

My thirst for knowledge is an unsatiable one. I am 16, go to high school and college and still am frusterated because I am not learning enough. That coupled with the fact that I am sub-human to all others around me, you can understand why I get frusterated with the current system in place.

[warbeak2099]

You do know that Piaget and other psychologists have found that decision making skills are not yet fully developed in young children. Minors have also not gone through enough schooling and education yet to understand sound decision making. Not to say that public schools are teaching that anymore, but that's the idea behind the laws.

I just don't think you get it. No matter what your beliefs are, the brain does not start fully developed. Children under 18 arebn't yet able to realize the full ramifications of their actions. That's why you see kids who do stupid things and get hurt on the internet. It's funny to watch, but in reality you're viewing science at work. Take some biology and psychology courses before you argue that minors should be allowed to have all this freedom. It's very obvious that you don't know what you're talking about right now. Hell, you most likely haven't developed your brain fully unless you're superhuman.

[PumpPlayer]

I never said we should test for maturity. I said there should be a benchmark for the indication of maturity. Big difference.


And I see now. OEP is an anarchist. He just hates all established doctrine!
Everything makes so much more sense now...



BTW, nice social plan. I'm sure it'd work out real well for us all. :dance:

[warbeak2099]

Yea I know lol, maybe we should just have no laws whatsoever. Oh wait, maybe we could all make decisions based on our "heat of the moment" feelings instead of listening to empirical evidence and real data. I'd love to live in that world... oh wait, we're going that way. OEP will most likely get his way if People like Bush or Kerry continue to hold the top spots in power. Flaming radicals never did anyone a bit of good. Just look at the French Revolution! Silly Robespierre.

[OneEyedPimp]

Not any more or less human. Different.

Much like black and white. Wonder what happened to all of those laws?


Men and women differ physiologically and, quite arguably, intellectually as well.
Health and life insurance costs and benefits are different for men than they are for women.
Is it somehow calling men less human by charging them more for life insurance because they're statistically more likely to die at a younger age? I don't think so.

Two different arguments here, you are referring to the private sector where you have a choice not to have that insurance, while I am referring to the government sector where laws are made telling private companies and people what they can and can't do.


When you can prove to me that a two-year-old has the intellectual capacity to match wits with me, then we'll give the two-year-old my job and let them take care of me. Sound cool?

I never said that it was possible for that to happen, obiously human nature requires nuturment until they are "older" (each definition varies). I am just against a universal age in which people define as the age in which all the brain power comes into use.



You gotta draw the line somewhere and it might as well be on or around the age at which you graduate from High School.

Never said we shoulden't, just that we all shouldent decide for everyone else.



EDIT: Careful with supporting relativism in all matters. Relativism has a tendancy to come around and bite you on the rear.

Everything is relative. Everything.

[OneEyedPimp]

I never said we should test for maturity. I said there should be a benchmark for the indication of maturity. Big difference.


And I see now. OEP is an anarchist. He just hates all established doctrine!
Everything makes so much more sense now...



BTW, nice social plan. I'm sure it'd work out real well for us all. :dance:

Adhem, I said as close to it as humanely possible while still having order. As such, as limited amount of laws as we can get by with.

Anarchy is a theology, it can never happen with human nature, as much as I would like. It was John Locke that said the more civilized we become, the more we are in chains(not an exact quote).

[OneEyedPimp]

Yea I know lol, maybe we should just have no laws whatsoever. Oh wait, maybe we could all make decisions based on our "heat of the moment" feelings instead of listening to empirical evidence and real data. I'd love to live in that world... oh wait, we're going that way. OEP will most likely get his way if People like Bush or Kerry continue to hold the top spots in power. Flaming radicals never did anyone a bit of good. Just look at the French Revolution! Silly Robespierre.

While we both agree that anarchy can never happen in a civilized society, you would be surprised how close we are to it when the only laws governing the land are those laid out in the constitution.

And no, I am not a flaming radical, just subscribe to a theology (I do not actually believe that any theology will ever work in today's world).

[Lohman446]

You may find my views radical, but they stem from my views on abortion. If you consider somone under 18 not an adult, you are putting them in a class that is sub-human by definition. By doing this you are saying that abortion is fine and more that someone under 18 is less, somehow, than that of someone over that age, and I am fundamentally against that. .

Umm... no I'm not, dont put words into my mouth

[OneEyedPimp]

Umm... no I'm not, dont put words into my mouth

Ok fine. I did not mean to imply you are doing that.

[ahellers]

listen man.
when i was your age i thought the same way you did (not about not being considerd human, but about thinking i would always have the same opinions on things). but when you get to a certin point (not necicarily in age but in responsability) then you realize being an adult is a whole different animal. there are so many stupid things that i did growing up that i didnt think were such a big deal at the time. the only thing that keeps me from going insane thinking about them is the knowage that i learned from them, maybe not at the time but certinly when i looked back at them.
the other thing that you will realize is that many of your ideas that you have; or had, are not new at all. remember there are countless people that have made the jorney before you, and they all have had ideas of there own, many just like yours. but also a huge majority have made it through life just fine the way it is... its a system it works.
t

[OneEyedPimp]

listen man.
when i was your age i thought the same way you did (not about not being considerd human, but about thinking i would always have the same opinions on things). but when you get to a certin point (not necicarily in age but in responsability) then you realize being an adult is a whole different animal. there are so many stupid things that i did growing up that i didnt think were such a big deal at the time. the only thing that keeps me from going insane thinking about them is the knowage that i learned from them, maybe not at the time but certinly when i looked back at them.
the other thing that you will realize is that many of your ideas that you have; or had, are not new at all. remember there are countless people that have made the jorney before you, and they all have had ideas of there own, many just like yours. but also a huge majority have made it through life just fine the way it is... its a system it works.
t

All relative and opinions. I never claimed that these ideas were new, or revolutionary, just that I would like to see them put into practice.

[Jonno06]

I haven't really read the rest of this thread, because well, i didn't want to.

but basically, I believe that if someone is old enough to be tried as an ADULT in the court of law, then they should be given the rights of an ADULT.

[OneEyedPimp]

I agree whole heartedly with that and it is my personal definion on age.

[ahellers]

I haven't really read the rest of this thread, because well, i didn't want to.

but basically, I believe that if someone is old enough to be tried as an ADULT in the court of law, then they should be given the rights of an ADULT.

well. i belive that 18 is the age when some one is "old enough" to be tried in a court of law as an adult. i know younger people are sometimes tried as adult but this is due to extenuating cercumstances (whew... big words i know i misspelled), and i dont know of any legislation that actully sets an age (other then 18) a person can be tried as an adult. so all things considerd thats not a very good bench mark at all.
t

[PumpPlayer]

What'd I tell you about relativism?

So as I understand you, we should all be able to (vote, drive, drink, smoke, etc.) when we are subjectively determined to be adults on some system outside of a mathematical deffinition based upon chronology? And... because everything is relative... we can't make that deffinition? But yet we still have to?


I'm having trouble seeing through the contradictions so I'm going to go onto some more questions.

You seem to have no problem with the "private sector" doing whatever the heck it wants to do.
I am curious, does that apply to individuals or households and families as well?

If so, does that mean that all parents should be able to raise their children however they see fit?
If so, does that mean if a parent wants to make their kid do chores, then that's OK?
If so, what about when they define intensive manual labor as 'chores'?
If the children don't do this difficult work, is it alright for parents to punish their children?
By grounding them? Taking away their allowance? Denying them meals? How about corporal punnishment?
What if someone's relative deffinition of punnishment is an oak rod to the skull?
But I see your point, we have no right to tell other people how to live, right?

How about corporations embezzling from their stockholders? I mean, it's the stockholder's fault they invested in the corporation in the first place, right?

How about public nudity? The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I have to wear.

How about disturbing the peace? Nobody should be able to tell me how loud I can or cannot play my stereo.

What if all the farmers in the nation decided to get together and arbitrarily charge $50/pound for grain? If they all agree to it and they're in the private sector, they should be allowed to do it, right?

And if the answer to any of these questions is, "no", then who gets to pay the taxes that pay for our justice system to see such actions prevented?


Like it or not, there are absolutes in this world and not nearly as many subjects have the luxury of relativism as you might believe. Are there erroneous and unnecessary laws on the books? Yes, but you haven't mentioned any so far.

[OneEyedPimp]

What'd I tell you about relativism?

So as I understand you, we should all be able to (vote, drive, drink, smoke, etc.) when we are subjectively determined to be adults on some system outside of a mathematical deffinition based upon chronology? And... because everything is relative... we can't make that deffinition? But yet we still have to?


I'm having trouble seeing through the contradictions so I'm going to go onto some more questions.

You seem to have no problem with the "private sector" doing whatever the heck it wants to do.
I am curious, does that apply to individuals or households and families as well?

If so, does that mean that all parents should be able to raise their children however they see fit?
If so, does that mean if a parent wants to make their kid do chores, then that's OK?
If so, what about when they define intensive manual labor as 'chores'?
If the children don't do this difficult work, is it alright for parents to punish their children?
By grounding them? Taking away their allowance? Denying them meals? How about corporal punnishment?
What if someone's relative deffinition of punnishment is an oak rod to the skull?
But I see your point, we have no right to tell other people how to live, right?

How about corporations embezzling from their stockholders? I mean, it's the stockholder's fault they invested in the corporation in the first place, right?

How about public nudity? The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I have to wear.

How about disturbing the peace? Nobody should be able to tell me how loud I can or cannot play my stereo.

What if all the farmers in the nation decided to get together and arbitrarily charge $50/pound for grain? If they all agree to it and they're in the private sector, they should be allowed to do it, right?

And if the answer to any of these questions is, "no", then who gets to pay the taxes that pay for our justice system to see such actions prevented?


Like it or not, there are absolutes in this world and not nearly as many subjects have the luxury of relativism as you might believe. Are there erroneous and unnecessary laws on the books? Yes, but you haven't mentioned any so far.


The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.
-Thomas Jefferson

Let people live how they see fit so long as they do not harm others. A parent can punish their child, provided it is proper to the wrongdoing committed.

[PumpPlayer]

"Proper" as defined by whom?
What's your standard of measure?
And why are parents special that they should be allowed to dictate the actions of another?
When do parents loose that authority, if ever?


If you're going to quote the entire post then you should at least respond to it.

[OneEyedPimp]

"Proper" as defined by whom?
What's your standard of measure?
And why are parents special that they should be allowed to dictate the actions of another?
When do parents loose that authority, if ever?


If you're going to quote the entire post then you should at least respond to it.

You may not like relativeness, but it plays here again. To me it doesnt matter. If it is not affecting me, why bother with it?

But to answer your question: it falls on the family to make that decision, each of which will obiously be different. In my houshold it would be something minor like losing a privelage, or something other. In someone elses it may be different.

The parent only retains the right to reign over their children provided they are providing room and board for them, else they lose it. See, I am not completely against the current system.

[quasimorte]

Two things i want to say.

first: while age limit laws may be new as established laws before this system exsisted children were considered chattle (sub-human if you will), owned by their parents and entirely at their whim. Only in the last 50 years have places in china stoped the practice of killing unwanted female babies, I definately don't want to go back to this type of system.

second: The type of government you are advocating has never exsisted for very long due to human nature. the current system developed out of something similar to what you are talking about. the reason it developed is due, in some case, to need and in other to social irrespocibility (sp?). the type of government you look for requires a fully informed populace, everybody must know exactly what their candidate would do and all of the consequenes of any given law. this is impossible. as shown by the current laws. no law has exactly the desired effect even if applied as indended it doesn't stay that way for very long.

right now we have one of the best systems in the world, it is flawed but for the most part it stays out of my business and allows me to live my life. that is all i ask, even though i break laws every day.

[OneEyedPimp]

Two things i want to say.

first: while age limit laws may be new as established laws before this system exsisted children were considered chattle (sub-human if you will), owned by their parents and entirely at their whim. Only in the last 50 years have places in china stoped the practice of killing unwanted female babies, I definately don't want to go back to this type of system.

I am not advocating we go back to that either.


second: The type of government you are advocating has never exsisted for very long due to human nature. the current system developed out of something similar to what you are talking about. the reason it developed is due, in some case, to need and in other to social irrespocibility (sp?). the type of government you look for requires a fully informed populace, everybody must know exactly what their candidate would do and all of the consequenes of any given law. this is impossible. as shown by the current laws. no law has exactly the desired effect even if applied as indended it doesn't stay that way for very long.

While it is true that the system we have has evolved from my ideal, does that mean mine does not work? The system you have now started its quick rise in the early 1920s. Not that long ago, up until then things were relatively peachy. But I know that I will live and die in this system, my children will likewise, but in a system with a greater degree of power.


right now we have one of the best systems in the world, it is flawed but for the most part it stays out of my business and allows me to live my life. that is all i ask, even though i break laws every day.

Opinions. I personally think we have one of the most flawed systems.

[warbeak2099]

I don't think he's getting it. We're not saying that minors are lesser people. We're saying that it has been proven that human development is just not complete with regards to the mind and brain during childhood. Minors cannot make good decisions like people who are fully developed. If you're rejecting that then you're simply being ignorant. This has been scientific knowledge for a long time now. Piaget first began to discover the stages in human development during the first half of the 20th century. For over 50 years we have been able to test and prove that the developing brain goes through stages.

[ultralight]

libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. like all utopian systems it looks great in theory or on paper. however, all of these systems fail when put into practice becasue they can not account for the random, violent nature of human beings.

i consider myself a moderate libertarian. however, i know that radical (or pure) libertarianism could never succeed.
it is based on the good will and willingness of the people within the system. people are greedy, selfish, violent, and hateful. you can not expect them to play nice if they know that nobody is watching. people do not want to work toward the greater good. they want to garner as many resources for themselves as possible. we are not naturally born with modern society in our genes. this is why children need parents and schools, because when we are born, we are basically animals.



I mean what does it matter if someone has, say, a nuke if they dont use it for other's bodily harm?
what is the purpose of a nuclear weapon? what possible legal application is there for a nuclear weapon in the hands of a civilian? you put too much faith in your fellow man. what is easier and/or cheaper? preventing a man from owning a nuclear weapon( you can substitute nuclear weapon for any military grade explosive device), which has absolutely no peaceful purpose, or cleaning up after he drunkenly sets it off?


This is what is wrong with our society, we preemptively judge everyone before they even do anything.
Seriously: people need to stop worrying about what other people might do and more about what they do.
i ask you, what is the difference? are you saying that the law should not exist until someone breaks it? that makes no sense. how will we know when it is broken if it does not exist. laws don't affect you until you break them. specific laws are in place becasue people tend to try to infringe on the personal freedoms of others in the same ways over and over again.


the solution is pretty clear, just don't pay for it. this will not work. period. no action is without consequence, nothing is free, including mistakes. that's what society is all about.if you live here and reap the rewards, you share the burden.


The parent only retains the right to reign over their children provided they are providing room and board for them, else they lose it. is the government of this country not providing a safe environment where you are guaranteed the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? they are. as long as they do, you are expected to obey the laws of this country.


laws governing the actions of minors are in place becasue minors, as a group, are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. they are too impulsive, mentally underdeveloped, and chemically unstable. they are not physically or mentally adult yet, why should they have the freedoms of an adult? minors are not treated as sub-human, simply sub-adult. this is logical because that is exactly what they are.

many teens and adolescents (such as yourself) tend to gravitate toward idealist, purist, radical notions. moderation and balance are the keys to everything. only when you mix the oxygen AND the acetylene can you cut the steel.

[warbeak2099]

Very well said. However, I have a feeling he still won't understand. Hell, I'm 18yo and I accept that my brain isn't fully developed yet. I do some pretty stupid crap and that's natural. I'm sure glad there are laws regulating me though.

[dave p]

the law is in place and a constituancy voted in the elected officials who enacted the law. i happen to agree with the law myself, so good for them for enforcing it.

the oneyedpimp is still wet behind the ears and defending ideologies he only partially understands.

if you feel the system is flawed then vote. oh yeah, you arent old enough. good thing too.
so for now my friend too bad for you. love it or leave it.

[OneEyedPimp]

libertarianism is fundamentally flawed. like all utopian systems it looks great in theory or on paper. however, all of these systems fail when put into practice becasue they can not account for the random, violent nature of human beings.

i consider myself a moderate libertarian. however, i know that radical (or pure) libertarianism could never succeed.
it is based on the good will and willingness of the people within the system. people are greedy, selfish, violent, and hateful. you can not expect them to play nice if they know that nobody is watching. people do not want to work toward the greater good. they want to garner as many resources for themselves as possible. we are not naturally born with modern society in our genes. this is why children need parents and schools, because when we are born, we are basically animals.

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years.


what is the purpose of a nuclear weapon? what possible legal application is there for a nuclear weapon in the hands of a civilian? you put too much faith in your fellow man. what is easier and/or cheaper? preventing a man from owning a nuclear weapon( you can substitute nuclear weapon for any military grade explosive device), which has absolutely no peaceful purpose, or cleaning up after he drunkenly sets it off?

You can not look at one side and ignore the other. We are playing a what if game in which we both choose radically opposite things and say what if this or that. The fact of the matter is this: how many people could afford a nuke?


i ask you, what is the difference? are you saying that the law should not exist until someone breaks it? that makes no sense. how will we know when it is broken if it does not exist. laws don't affect you until you break them. specific laws are in place becasue people tend to try to infringe on the personal freedoms of others in the same ways over and over again.

No, what I am saying is that we should not assume that if someone buys a nuke that he will actually use it. The same argument can be applied to everything. If someone buys a .50BMG does that mean that he will use it in a bad way? Sure there is the what if he uses it to shoot some high ranking public official, however there is the equally strong what if that says he may just use it for a wall decoration. I just don't believe we should restrict someone from doing or owning something simply because the what if scenarios portray it in a bad light.


this will not work. period. no action is without consequence, nothing is free, including mistakes. that's what society is all about.if you live here and reap the rewards, you share the burden.

The epitome of a civilized society is usually followed by an downfall that is opposite to that of its rise.


laws governing the actions of minors are in place becasue minors, as a group, are incapable of making sound decisions for themselves. they are too impulsive, mentally underdeveloped, and chemically unstable. they are not physically or mentally adult yet, why should they have the freedoms of an adult? minors are not treated as sub-human, simply sub-adult. this is logical because that is exactly what they are.

The "what if"s are here as well. While I agree that the majority of our youth are incoherent morons and most of them would fit into most people's what if scenarios you have to take into acount the percentage that exibits adult thinking and rational thought.


many teens and adolescents (such as yourself) tend to gravitate toward idealist, purist, radical notions. moderation and balance are the keys to everything. only when you mix the oxygen AND the acetylene can you cut the steel.

I am fine with moderation. All I want is that we go back to a minimalistic government, the one that was laid out in the constitution. A place where congress makes laws only for the protection of freedom, not the supression of it.

And while I am an idealist we are the ones who push for our ideals. We are the ones who do not easily give up on humanity, so that when the moderation of our views come into play great documents such as the Constitution come forth, giving the moderates a start on the building of the fascist state we now live in. God I love humanity.

[OneEyedPimp]

the law is in place and a constituancy voted in the elected officials who enacted the law. i happen to agree with the law myself, so good for them for enforcing it.

A law can not be one in which the 51% vote what to do with the other 49%.


the oneyedpimp is still wet behind the ears and defending ideologies he only partially understands.

I fully understand my ideology, do you? And for now it is not a "the" just a "oneeyedpimp."


if you feel the system is flawed then vote. oh yeah, you arent old enough. good thing too.
so for now my friend too bad for you. love it or leave it.

That is the beauty of age laws, they expire. I will be able to vote in the next presidential election. And I was sincere about moving to Switzerland. I hear it is nice there.

[ultralight]

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years.
A libertarian system, not your libertarian system. not ayn rand's libertarian system. it was not the radical on-the-verge-of-anarchy system you speak of. the constitution was not the only law for those hundred plus years.



You can not look at one side and ignore the other. We are playing a what if game in which we both choose radically opposite things and say what if this or that. The fact of the matter is this: how many people could afford a nuke?
as i said, substitute nuclear weapon for any military grade explosive. all of a sudden, alot more people can afford the destructive devices we're talking about. and there is every possibility that they would use them. i'm not dealing with extremes here, just probable outcomes. sell a man a hand grenade for $40, then have him walk in on his wife cheating on him with his brother. do you want to be there to find out if he uses the hand grenade? i don't. also, who pays millions of dollars for anything and doesn't use it? that goes for nukes, golf courses, homes, yachts, anything. the more someone pays, the more likely they'd be to use it.


No, what I am saying is that we should not assume that if someone buys a nuke that he will actually use it. The same argument can be applied to everything. If someone buys a .50BMG does that mean that he will use it in a bad way? Sure there is the what if he uses it to shoot some high ranking public official, however there is the equally strong what if that says he may just use it for a wall decoration. I just don't believe we should restrict someone from doing or owning something simply because the what if scenarios portray it in a bad light.

there is a big difference between a rifle, of any caliber, and an explosive device. it seems you have an aversion to drawing lines, differentiating between obviously different groups.



The epitome of a civilized society is usually followed by an downfall that is opposite to that of its rise.
and...?




The "what if"s are here as well. While I agree that the majority of our youth are incoherent morons and most of them would fit into most people's what if scenarios you have to take into acount the percentage that exibits adult thinking and rational thought.
you can'tlet all of the inmates go simply because one or two could be innocent. yes, the system may trample a few, but it preserves the interests of the many.


I am fine with moderation. All I want is that we go back to a minimalistic government, the one that was laid out in the constitution. A place where congress makes laws only for the protection of freedom, not the supression of it.
i agree with you in that government needs to be smaller as does the dependance of the people on it. however, no system is perfect.


And while I am an idealist we are the ones who push for our ideals. We are the ones who do not easily give up on humanity, so that when the moderation of our views come into play great documents such as the Constitution come forth, giving the moderates a start on the building of the fascist state we now live in. God I love humanity.

idealists are also the ones who incite riots that do more harm than good. idealists are the ones who are responsible for genocide. idealists have their place, as long as that place is not one of power.

[PumpPlayer]

Warbreak, you may be trying to be too scientific about this. Remember that logical arguments only work with people who are themselves logical.


Pimp, let's try this again.

You agreed that parents have authority over their children. You claim that because parents provide for their children, they have the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to dictate their behavior.

Let's take this one step further. How about adopted children?
I'm going to assume you agree that adopted children would bear the same protection, provision and responsibility as "normal" children.

Let's take it one more step. How about aging or ailing family members or friends?
If I take in my 95-year-old grandmother to care for her, do I then have the right to dictate certain things like where she sleeps, what she can or cannot eat (no junk food, Nana!) and other day-to-day decisions? I should think so, don't you?

Lastly, the final step is taking someone under your protection or provision who is a stranger to you. A traveller lost on his way with three flat tires in a snowstorm or whatever the specific case may be. It's my house, so I make the rules, so to speak. Right?

Now extrapolate to society and public services. And don't bother, I'll counter myself with what I can expect your argument to be.


Government doesn't have the responsibility to help anyone!


At least, that is what I expect you would say.
At this point, you have to take a stance based upon your moral fiber. You are a moral relativist. There is no right or wrong except what affects you. If it affects you and you like it, then it's OK. If it affects you and you don't like it, then it's wrong. The problem with this moral system is many-fold. I will go over only three key points. First is the lack of urgency when considering the situation of another. Second is the lack of empathy when one comes to the realization that one's decisions affect others. Third and most importantly is the lack of universal or absolute standards to govern a decision-making process.

"Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" does not work. The entire world is not relative and the human emotional web (to say nothing of our systems of interaction such as economical and social) is too complex for any one being to be truly hermetic.


Let me put this is a sentence you can understand.
Your proposed social system, like your moral code, is fundamentally corrupt, impossible and evil.


You are under the false pretense that so long as you 'live and let live', all others will do the same.
You are under the false pretense that some human beings in our world do not need assistance from others.
You are under the false pretense that the respect and civility provided you by other human beings bears with it no responsibility on your part.
Lastly, you are under the false pretense that everything you "know" is correct.

You are an American teenager and you are the reason the voting age is 18.




I think you'll find Switzerland a lot less glorious in reality than you might think it is.
You want to talk about social responsibility, taxation and state authority...

[OneEyedPimp]

Warbreak, you may be trying to be too scientific about this. Remember that logical arguments only work with people who are themselves logical.

I take contempt to that


Pimp, let's try this again.

You agreed that parents have authority over their children. You claim that because parents provide for their children, they have the right (perhaps even the responsibility) to dictate their behavior.

Let's take this one step further. How about adopted children?
I'm going to assume you agree that adopted children would bear the same protection, provision and responsibility as "normal" children.

Let's take it one more step. How about aging or ailing family members or friends?
If I take in my 95-year-old grandmother to care for her, do I then have the right to dictate certain things like where she sleeps, what she can or cannot eat (no junk food, Nana!) and other day-to-day decisions? I should think so, don't you?

Lastly, the final step is taking someone under your protection or provision who is a stranger to you. A traveller lost on his way with three flat tires in a snowstorm or whatever the specific case may be. It's my house, so I make the rules, so to speak. Right?

Now extrapolate to society and public services. And don't bother, I'll counter myself with what I can expect your argument to be.

Well, I agree with everything you said. As long as the government provides for us(makes us pay taxes to provide for others) they make the rules[.] Whether I am against that is another question.



Government doesn't have the responsibility to help anyone!

I said what any man with two penises would say to a tailor when asked if he dressed left or right: yes.



At least, that is what I expect you would say.
At this point, you have to take a stance based upon your moral fiber. You are a moral relativist. There is no right or wrong except what affects you. If it affects you and you like it, then it's OK. If it affects you and you don't like it, then it's wrong. The problem with this moral system is many-fold. I will go over only three key points. First is the lack of urgency when considering the situation of another. Second is the lack of empathy when one comes to the realization that one's decisions affect others. Third and most importantly is the lack of universal or absolute standards to govern a decision-making process.

What affects me is not necessarily wrong. What affects me in a way that infringes upon my rights is.

One, as I said, others welfare does not fall into my juristicion of "have-tos" as the government would have me think. I am not heartless and would help a fellow human, but I am not going to make that the mandate for the government.
Two, decisions that I make on a day-to-day basis dont affect others in a way that abridges their rigts. I actually don't make any such descisions, that is the politician's job.
Three, the decision making process is the right of the people to do for themselves, if they want to vote that the government is to now do that, so be it. It is a friggin democracy after all.


"Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else" does not work. The entire world is not relative and the human emotional web (to say nothing of our systems of interaction such as economical and social) is too complex for any one being to be truly hermetic.

Why would it not work? Have you seen a system in which people are free to do as they please provided that they do not infringe on others rights? And if they do, they get severe punishment?



Let me put this is a sentence you can understand.
Your proposed social system, like your moral code, is fundamentally corrupt, impossible and evil.

Wow, thanks. It all makes sense now. Next time it might help if you break it into syllables so that I can sound it out easier.



You are under the false pretense that so long as you 'live and let live', all others will do the same.
You are under the false pretense that some human beings in our world do not need assistance from others.
You are under the false pretense that the respect and civility provided you by other human beings bears with it no responsibility on your part.
Lastly, you are under the false pretense that everything you "know" is correct.

You are an American teenager and you are the reason the voting age is 18.

You really have no proof that they system that I propose will fail. You base it around the fact of human nature. I believe that my system would work if you violate someone else, the punishment should be swift and very harsh.

I suppose that I also subscribe to Social Darwinism. I really don't care that other people may need more help than some, it is just not my responsibility, or any one elses, to help them.

I have never claimed that what I "know" is fact. These are just opinions of mine in which I believe would be a "perfect" world.

So why is it me who is the reason the voting age is 18? When I turn 18 and I vote on my priciples that I have now, will I be the reason that society is going down the drain? As an American, any age, I am entitled to my opinions as much as you and just having them doesnt mean that they will magically change when I turn 18, making me proof that 18 is the golden year.


I think you'll find Switzerland a lot less glorious in reality than you might think it is.
You want to talk about social responsibility, taxation and state authority...

Yeah, I know. It is a joke that my friends and I share. I do want to visit though.

[OneEyedPimp]

On a side note, I wonder how long this will go on before a moderator steps in and shuts this thread?

[warbeak2099]

Warbreak, you may be trying to be too scientific about this. Remember that logical arguments only work with people who are themselves logical.

Heh heh, I know what you mean. He really isn't thinking logically. Instead of using facts and data that supports his findings, he's purely spouting his own unfounded ideology that really could never work in the real world. The reason he can't support his argument with facts is because there are no facts existing that back him up. When we look at examples in science, history, and even literature, we see that the data supports a system contrary to yours OEP. So whatever you think... well who cares. The way things need to be run is based on what is proven to work. Not your unprovable superstitions.




I think you'll find Switzerland a lot less glorious in reality than you might think it is.You want to talk about social responsibility, taxation and state authority...

I think you misunderstand me. I enjoy that structure. As we see from history, it's what is neccesary for a nation to progress. Without organization, the whole shows goes to hell in a hand basket. I again use the French Revolution and the first republic as an example. Switzerland is run very well. Their crime and poverty rates are very low and it's an all around clean place to live. Sure they are a little zenophobic, but they're a small country. They understand their limits and how many people they can sustain. Rather, in America, we take in way more immigrants, legal and illegal, than we should be taking in. We are seeing the effects of that presently.


I take contempt to that

I think you meant "I take offense to that". See what we mean?

[dave p]

A law can not be one in which the 51% vote what to do with the other 49%.



I fully understand my ideology, do you? And for now it is not a "the" just a "oneeyedpimp."



That is the beauty of age laws, they expire. I will be able to vote in the next presidential election. And I was sincere about moving to Switzerland. I hear it is nice there.

No, I do not know enough about it. But you see I can admit it. Ive listened to people like Neal Boortz talk about it for years. I dont see it gaining any momentum, and even Boortz will say they dont have it together, he even admits that they need to pick some better battles than legalizing pot, or letting kids run amok with bb guns. I do believe in personal property laws (because unlike you i actually own property, and pay significantly into our tax system). I do understand the government bloat we experience. I do understand the real problems that are associated with our governing bodies, when it comes to REAL issues, like where my kids go to school, or how much i am being taxed. or the burden of illegal immigrants on my health care costs, and their effect on the industry i work in. not little things like playing with bb guns. you son are still wet behind the ears in my estimation. when you can contribute and when you can vote, feel free to get all "idealist" on us. until then give it a rest. you think you have problems now, man are you in for an awakening. bigger concerns will be looming on the horizon.

big ups to the ayn rand reference earlier by the other gentleman.
one thing i learned in philosophy was that anything taken to the extreme is just not good. plato, aristotle or socates(i cant remember now) had quite a bit to say on the subject. as i understand it, even democracy in its purest form is not a desirable or necessarily beneficial governing system.

[OneEyedPimp]

Heh heh, I know what you mean. He really isn't thinking logically. Instead of using facts and data that supports his findings, he's purely spouting his own unfounded ideology that really could never work in the real world. The reason he can't support his argument with facts is because there are no facts existing that back him up. When we look at examples in science, history, and even literature, we see that the data supports a system contrary to yours OEP. So whatever you think... well who cares. The way things need to be run is based on what is proven to work. Not your unprovable superstitions.

Exactly, there is no facts on my side because it has never existed for any great period of time. My money says that my system, the U.S. system, would work if it was free of people electing representatives that vote it slowely away.

It is my belief that government is not natural, that it comes when society reaches a certain point. Eventually society gets bitten by the deal and over-throws it just to start the cycle over again. Pity really.


I think you meant "I take offense to that". See what we mean?

Technically speaking, as I seem to be doing that alot lately, both ways are right.

[OneEyedPimp]

No, I do not know enough about it. But you see I can admit it. Ive listened to people like Neal Boortz talk about it for years. I dont see it gaining any momentum, and even Boortz will say they dont have it together, he even admits that they need to pick some better battles than legalizing pot, or letting kids run amok with bb guns. I do believe in personal property laws (because unlike you i actually own property, and pay significantly into our tax system). I do understand the government bloat we experience. I do understand the real problems that are associated with our governing bodies, when it comes to REAL issues, like where my kids go to school, or how much i am being taxed. or the burden of illegal immigrants on my health care costs, and their effect on the industry i work in. not little things like playing with bb guns. you son are still wet behind the ears in my estimation. when you can contribute and when you can vote, feel free to get all "idealist" on us. until then give it a rest. you think you have problems now, man are you in for an awakening. bigger concerns will be looming on the horizon.

Personally, and you will hate this more than my view on age laws, I believe that taxation is theft. I believe that all taxes should be optional, as most are already, and you only have to pay them once, not year after year after year. Those who willfully pay taxes are not contributing to society, but increasing the slope in which it is falling.

And real issues are relative. Like me, my major concern is stopping the Iraq war and eliminating the public school system.


big ups to the ayn rand reference earlier by the other gentleman.
one thing i learned in philosophy was that anything taken to the extreme is just not good. plato, aristotle or socates(i cant remember now) had quite a bit to say on the subject. as i understand it, even democracy in its purest form is not a desirable or necessarily beneficial governing system.

In essence, no government system in its purity will last any great deal of time, it is not in our nature to be told what to do without some sort of reward.

And yes I agree that the Libertarian party needs to get on the map before they start campaining for the legalization of ALL drugs, elimination of almost all taxes, and many other modernly considered "radical" ideals.

[dave p]

Personally, and you will hate this more than my view on age laws, I believe that taxation is theft. I believe that all taxes should be optional, as most are already, and you only have to pay them once, not year after year after year. Those who willfully pay taxes are not contributing to society, but increasing the slope in which it is falling.

.

well, i like having my garbage picked up once a week and having a police force in my city, thank you. although if i were running things, id be getting more for my money. city employees are the laziest sacks on the planet.


but we have really deviated from the point. if it is illegal to buy bb guns under 18 in massachusetts than too f'n bad. its illegal. deal with it, or change the law. if people are breaking the law then punish them.

look kid, i have excercised many many personal feedoms in my lifetime. not a few of them less than legal, but i grew up. i now enjoy very many personal freedoms because I GREW UP and am old enough. you will to. for now you gotta deal with it. well. im out of this one. im gonna go have a beer. have fun carrying the weight of the world.

[OneEyedPimp]

well, i like having my garbage picked up once a week and having a police force in my city, thank you. although if i were running things, id be getting more for my money. city employees are the laziest sacks on the planet.

Essentially that is how it would work in "my world." You pay to have your garbage picked up and you pay the police officer when he fines you. If you don't pay for the garbage, it doesn't get picked up, if you dont pay the police fine, you go to jail and then have to pay for the time you were in there. My system at least, and I am not crazy enough to ask for people to use it.



but we have really deviated from the point. if it is illegal to buy bb guns under 18 in massachusetts than too f'n bad. its illegal. deal with it, or change the law. if people are breaking the law then punish them.

This whole thread is one big deviation. I agree with what you said above, but I also believe the children should be treated like adults in their punishment.


look kid, i have excercised many many personal feedoms in my lifetime. not a few of them less than legal, but i grew up. i now enjoy very many personal freedoms because I GREW UP and am old enough. you will to. for now you gotta deal with it. well. im out of this one. im gonna go have a beer. have fun carrying the weight of the world.

Look oldie, I get it. I know I will grow up, and will then still be arguing against the redundency of age laws. It is not as if by getting older, my brain will grow in. Oh well, at least some more people on AO know how crazy I am.

[jenarelJAM]

Essentially that is how it would work in "my world." You pay to have your garbage picked up and you pay the police officer when he fines you. If you don't pay for the garbage, it doesn't get picked up, if you dont pay the police fine, you go to jail and then have to pay for the time you were in there.

I'm still not understanding your utopian society...
You say if the people don't pay the police fine, they go to jail. Okay, cool; but you forgot one point: IF THERE ARE NO TAXES, HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY TO PAY FOR JAIL???
(and I'd like you to answer this question please)

Similarly, how does the government provide any of the basic freedoms you are accustomed to?

As an example:
A woman is walking down the street in a shady neighborhood. She gets pulled down an alley and raped.

1. If you witnessed this scene, what would you do? Sit there without calling the police because the men raping her weren't doing anything to you? That shows an unparalleled level of immaturity.
2. Where are the police officers in the first place, since they have no government paying them for their services?


Let people live how they see fit so long as they do not harm others. A parent can punish their child, provided it is proper to the wrongdoing committed.

And who is to judge whether "it is proper to the wrongdoing committed" or not? You?
This is why we pay tax dollars, for the government(judiciary system in this case) to regulate and settle disputes.


Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years.

Are you talking about something along the lines of the Articles of Confederation? You will notice that this government had a similar approach to what you describe. It had no power, did nothing, and was eventually replaced with the Constitution.

Is your ideal anarchial government one where we must go back to trading bread for tools, and paper money is good only for burning? Where does it end? Please explain to me how society can function to your standards without a governing body.

(and if you say that people will regulate themselves, I suggest you open a history textbook. Any one will do; open to any page, and you'll see reactions to injustices. )



and eliminating the public school system.


And why do you think we should get rid of public schooling? So that education can be solely for the rich and privleged again, the select few who can afford private school? So that our country falls even lower below the rest of the world's literacy rate?

I can't figure out what kind of political views you have. Getting rid of public schooling is VERY conservative, while anarchy is completely on the other end of the spectrum. I guess Pump player was right. You seem to be a moral relativist in that what affects you positively is "right" and what you just don't like is "wrong."


And if you're looking for an example of your theorhetical society, look at anarchy. The steady progression of government is:
Stable government
Corrupt government
People overthrow government
Anarchy
People need structured government again
Stable government
[repeat]

Now, you look at how long it takes for people to get through each of these stages, and you notice that the corrupt (I say corrupt because it's shorter than saying immoral, unjust, impractical) british government commanded their colony in the americas for a long time. The people didn't like it, so they rebelled. When they had won, how long did anarchy last? They didn't just roll over and say, "we won, we're free, nothing will ever bother us again." They immediately started designing a system of government that would be strong, fair, and flexible while still keeping most of its moral integrity. That same government has been around for hundreds of years. It's still around today, and most people believe in it. Anarchy didn't work out so well, but the U.S. Government obviously has.

[warbeak2099]

Look, forget it. The kid is ignorant. He is totally rejecting everything that has been proven about the development of children through childhod, adolescence, and adulthood. Either that, or he doesn't understand the concept that a child's and even teenager's brain is not fully developed therefore hindering their decision making abilities. Basically, you can't have a asociety where children are treated as intellectual or developmental equals as adults. It would be unfair to the children and it would result in chaos. Imagine a 5yo voting. Do you think they'd really understand the issues in America? No they wouldn't. How about a 13yo? Still, they aren't developed enough the comprehend the big picture. I don't think you really understand yet OEP, that even your brain is not fully developed.

Oh, and your system has been tried already in various forms. Everyone is treated as an equal under the state? Huh, communism. Woah look at that. Everytime they try communism or bolshevism as it should be called, millions of people are slaughtered in mass genocide. Know how many people Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed during their reign in Russia and the Soviet Union? Over 54 million. That's over 40 million more than Hitler. Still think your idea of a completely free society where everyone lives in an almost communal arrangement is kosher? Well it isn't. So stop spouting that crap out of your mouth until you really understand the full implications of what you're saying. Millions of people have died, been tortured, beaten, raped, and taken from their families. Don't you dare think it's ok to revive the same system under which they suffered so much. Don't you dare spit in their faces by saying it could work if we tried again. They are proof, in many cases, living proof. To ignore them is inhuman. Your whole argument is based on humanizing everyone. Making children equal to adults in every respect of the law. Think again. Or maybe you need someone who witnessed their entire family get gunned down in the Ukraine or Hungary during the Cold War, to tell you what your ideas lead to. The current system is not inhuman kid, yours is.

[OneEyedPimp]

I'm still not understanding your utopian society...
You say if the people don't pay the police fine, they go to jail. Okay, cool; but you forgot one point: IF THERE ARE NO TAXES, HOW DOES THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY TO PAY FOR JAIL???
(and I'd like you to answer this question please)

While I believe that taxes are theft, I do recognize that a SMALL, half to one and a half percent sales tax could be necessary for a "modern" system to work.


Similarly, how does the government provide any of the basic freedoms you are accustomed to?

As an example:
A woman is walking down the street in a shady neighborhood. She gets pulled down an alley and raped.

1. If you witnessed this scene, what would you do? Sit there without calling the police because the men raping her weren't doing anything to you? That shows an unparalleled level of immaturity.
2. Where are the police officers in the first place, since they have no government paying them for their services?

My belief is that the rapers have violated all of their rights, including life. Had I witnessed that, there would be one less raper in the world.




And who is to judge whether "it is proper to the wrongdoing committed" or not? You?
This is why we pay tax dollars, for the government(judiciary system in this case) to regulate and settle disputes.

So what makes the government workers better judging at the wrongdoing committed? Human nature is the same across the board, unless you are impling that the humans working for government are somehow cut from a finer cloth. If I am not worthy of judging wrongdoings to myself, than who is?




Are you talking about something along the lines of the Articles of Confederation? You will notice that this government had a similar approach to what you describe. It had no power, did nothing, and was eventually replaced with the Constitution.

No. The Articles of Confederation did not last that long. I was referring to the Constitutional government put in place.


Is your ideal anarchial government one where we must go back to trading bread for tools, and paper money is good only for burning? Where does it end? Please explain to me how society can function to your standards without a governing body.

(and if you say that people will regulate themselves, I suggest you open a history textbook. Any one will do; open to any page, and you'll see reactions to injustices. )

Are you insinuating that the government dictates every aspect of the economy?


And why do you think we should get rid of public schooling? So that education can be solely for the rich and privleged again, the select few who can afford private school? So that our country falls even lower below the rest of the world's literacy rate?

No, it is so that the billlions that we spend on that could be spent on the common protection of the average citizen. Currently there is a monopoly on the School system, namely why it is so expensive to go to a private one. Competition dictates prices.


I can't figure out what kind of political views you have. Getting rid of public schooling is VERY conservative, while anarchy is completely on the other end of the spectrum. I guess Pump player was right. You seem to be a moral relativist in that what affects you positively is "right" and what you just don't like is "wrong."

You will notice that I never advocated the use of anarchy, just as close as humanly possible while still having order. I.E. a tiny government. I just said that anarchy is my particular utopian system, as every party has. I am a libertarian.



And if you're looking for an example of your theorhetical society, look at anarchy. The steady progression of government is:
Stable government
Corrupt government
People overthrow government
Anarchy
People need structured government again
Stable government
[repeat]


I personally despise anarchy becuase of what it is. People live as they please until someone declares they are in charge, whether individually or as a collective. Anarchy is always temporary, generally with much chaos.


Now, you look at how long it takes for people to get through each of these stages, and you notice that the corrupt (I say corrupt because it's shorter than saying immoral, unjust, impractical) british government commanded their colony in the americas for a long time. The people didn't like it, so they rebelled. When they had won, how long did anarchy last? They didn't just roll over and say, "we won, we're free, nothing will ever bother us again." They immediately started designing a system of government that would be strong, fair, and flexible while still keeping most of its moral integrity. That same government has been around for hundreds of years. It's still around today, and most people believe in it. Anarchy didn't work out so well, but the U.S. Government obviously has.

True. True. But, the government we have now is NOT the one set up in the late 1700s. The people who set up that one went to war over three very small taxes. Lord is me, that does not sound like today.

I will tell you what we'll compromise, no anarchy but we revert to what the constitution says, revoking most laws made after 1912. I think that is fair, no?

[OneEyedPimp]

Look, forget it. The kid is ignorant. He is totally rejecting everything that has been proven about the development of children through childhod, adolescence, and adulthood. Either that, or he doesn't understand the concept that a child's and even teenager's brain is not fully developed therefore hindering their decision making abilities. Basically, you can't have a asociety where children are treated as intellectual or developmental equals as adults. It would be unfair to the children and it would result in chaos. Imagine a 5yo voting. Do you think they'd really understand the issues in America? No they wouldn't. How about a 13yo? Still, they aren't developed enough the comprehend the big picture. I don't think you really understand yet OEP, that even your brain is not fully developed.

Ok, what if I could prove that a race, of any age, was intellectually slower than the rest. That they were not capable of understanding "the issues in America"? Should we not allow that race to vote? Wonder how that would go over with the populance.

I am not saying that children are as developed as adults, just that I, personally, disagree with a universal age in which a person becomes fully developed.


Oh, and your system has been tried already in various forms. Everyone is treated as an equal under the state? Huh, communism. Woah look at that. Everytime they try communism or bolshevism as it should be called, millions of people are slaughtered in mass genocide. Know how many people Stalin and the Bolsheviks killed during their reign in Russia and the Soviet Union? Over 54 million. That's over 40 million more than Hitler. Still think your idea of a completely free society where everyone lives in an almost communal arrangement is kosher? Well it isn't. So stop spouting that crap out of your mouth until you really understand the full implications of what you're saying. Millions of people have died, been tortured, beaten, raped, and taken from their families. Don't you dare think it's ok to revive the same system under which they suffered so much. Don't you dare spit in their faces by saying it could work if we tried again. They are proof, in many cases, living proof. To ignore them is inhuman. Your whole argument is based on humanizing everyone. Making children equal to adults in every respect of the law. Think again. Or maybe you need someone who witnessed their entire family get gunned down in the Ukraine or Hungary during the Cold War, to tell you what your ideas lead to. The current system is not inhuman kid, yours is.

Never once have I advocated a communal system.(!) I am against those type of systems to the biggest degree becuase it implies that people are not individuals, but rather a group of animals.

System like ours are the ones that lead to communism, socialism, and fascism. If we do not reset our system from time to time, they will come. Millions more will die when that happens before the people are able to over throw it. I would rather be the radical advocating that we revert back to what our constitution says, rather than the one who thinks the current system works, the one who is the reason that fascism, communism, and socialism can step in.

[jenarelJAM]

Okay, I've come to the same conclusion Warbeak has. That this kid needs to take a breather and learn something about the world instead of spouting misrepresented arguments that don't address the arguments at hand.
I just saw flight 93 today, and am too emotionally drained to sit here and argue with you, since the other 50 people who have already done so have failed to make you see common sense.

If I may ask you a personal question: How much money does your family make? Because your views still seem to be, " If it benefits me" oriented, as if you have a careless disregard for anyone less fortunate as you.

On the topic of the original thread:
At walmart, the last time I tried buying paint(scorch, because it's cheap and decent) they wouldn't sell it to me because I'm under 18. My dad was standing right next to me even. When they said that, he took my money(cash) and said, "well in that case, I'm buying it." and the lady said, "you're just buying it for him." We had to get the manager to come over and specifically say it was okay for us to buy the paint. This seems like MAJOR overkill for anything paintball related, but for paint??? The items they should be monitoring are the co2 cartridges(those 8oz disposable ones), and the VL Orions. What is it you can do with paintballs? Vandalize with them? You can already buy buckets of paint as a minor, and it's easier to vandalize with that. I think people need to stop being stupid and crack down on the real issues, like enforcing the law, not punishing the people trying to run a business.

As a parting request, Mods, please close this thread, it's off topic, and I am sorry to say I have contributed to that.

[snoopay700]

OH HORRORS SOMEONE ENFORCING THE LAW OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

foolish children.
Sigh, not upholding it, they're just being stupid. To make them stop selling look-a-like guns as they called them just because a few people are stupid and hold up places with them is stupidity. So a few people don't have common sense, why punish eveyone else? Oh, also, i'm 16 and i have an airsoft gun bought with my money, however my parents are the ones who approved of me buying it online and are the one who used their credit card to buy it. It's not against the law for minors to own them, just to buy them, and it's the same thing with paintball, so do you think they should stop selling paintball guns? Basically it's up to the parents to keep that kind of stuff away from their little children, not the store owners, i mean they can't ask if it's for a child and if it is refuse to sell it. Now the case of actually going into like wal mart and buying one while being underage, that IS the store's fault and then the store should be fined and told to check ID, but not told to stop selling the guns altogether.

[jenarelJAM]

No no, you misunderstand.
First, I was buying paint, not a gun.
Second, my dad was standing right next to me.
Third, she wouldn't sell it to my dad, because she knew he was buying it for me. And it took a manager to correct that.

[Lohman446]

Except for the fact that the "libertarian system" was in place in this country for a good hundred and then some years..

You have brought a lot of dubious facts into this argument and I am going to start calling you on them. There are too many counterexamples to prove your libertarian system under the current Constitution. If you're talking pre-constitutionional era I doubt I need to point out the failures with even a generally small population. You certainly are not talking post-constitutional and mentioning 100 years, thats just blatantly false Whiskey rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion)

Your argument becomes weaker and weaker the further you try to justify it. The fact of the matter is you don't have history or economics on your side. Once the base of your argument is debased it becomes logically harder to justify it. The accounting that comes up with a 1.5% theory is dubious as well. Considering since 1940 we have not spent less than that one and a half percent of GDP on our military alone the numbers do not come out. That doesn't consider roads, hospitals, administration, etc. Even if one accepts the theory that the private sector will step up and provide for the greater good you certainly cannot make an argument that they should directly fund / control the military can you?



Source on military spending (http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php)

[warbeak2099]

Ok, what if I could prove that a race, of any age, was intellectually slower than the rest. That they were not capable of understanding "the issues in America"? Should we not allow that race to vote? Wonder how that would go over with the populance.

I am not saying that children are as developed as adults, just that I, personally, disagree with a universal age in which a person becomes fully developed.

Minors are not a race. They are a group within America, yes, but not a race. Don't use hyperbole to win your argument. It just makes you further look like a religious fanatic instead of an intelligent, sentient individual.

Now, do most children understand fully the isues in America? No they do not. No sireee. Does a small minority understand them fully? Say, the upper 3% of the unit normal curve. Yes of course. However, what would happen if we let the children who weren't part of that small 3% vote about important issues and take part in important facets of our government. Well I don't think you'd want that either. Not everyone is underdeveloped before 18, but most kids are. Do you understand what I'm saying? Just because a handful of kids can FULLY understand important issues, doesn't mean the rest should be allowed to screw up the country. You yourself display that you don't know the total ramifications of your views. The adults, not including myself, on this board have proved that they understand the issues more than you do. Why? You're 16 bud, you aren't fully developed up in the cabeza. See what would happen if we followed your ridiculous system? 5yos would be making important decisions that could change the course of our nation. It's a little asanine to say that would be a good thing.

[teufelhunden]

OEP's style of discussion seems strikingly familiar..

Oh, yeah, it's like that of the MTV-taught liberal college students.

"Facts? History? Who needs that! MOVEON.ORG GEORGE BUSH IS EVIL OMG KARL ROVE HELPPPPPPPP"

[OneEyedPimp]

I am not, nor ever have been liberal.And I HATE MTV.

[warbeak2099]

You're conducting yourself like one. You aren't using facts to back up your argument. You aren't including the whole picture in your argument. You're forming an ideology entirely from your own "feelings" instead of observations about history, government, etc.

[OneEyedPimp]

This is my last post in this thread:


I accept the fact that my "views" will not work in today's modern society. It can never work, not because the views themselves are flawed, in my opinion, but because the Judo-christian values in this country, as well as most countries in the world, have created a wanting for security above all else. They also wish to project their views on everyone else, everyone is guilty of it, even I.

The only way that my views will work is if the U.S. government is overthrown. This will only happen when the U.S. progresses to a socialistic point in the far off future. Only then as people will finally realize what they have lost, allowing them to form together and get systematically wiped out by the U.S. armed forces that have been growing since 1940. Only when humanity advances to a point where we are all equals, by our own accord, and where poverty, illness, and other "reasons" to have the government are all but distant memories will my views be able to exist in a modern society.



Your argument becomes weaker and weaker the further you try to justify it. The fact of the matter is you don't have history or economics on your side. Once the base of your argument is debased it becomes logically harder to justify it. The accounting that comes up with a 1.5% theory is dubious as well. Considering since 1940 we have not spent less than that one and a half percent of GDP on our military alone the numbers do not come out. That doesn't consider roads, hospitals, administration, etc. Even if one accepts the theory that the private sector will step up and provide for the greater good you certainly cannot make an argument that they should directly fund / control the military can you?

I wonder why the Military has been growing since 1940? What could the reason be? Wait, could it be that the U.S. has taken an agressive policy of invading sovereign nations? No, that can't be the reason.

The 1.5% figure is just one to provide for the basic necessities for the Federal governement. States can apply higher taxes as necessary for their needs. Temporary taxes, larger ones, can be applied during times of war in which the army has to be grown as I do not believe in a free standing army.

No, I do not believe that the private sector should control the army, they can help but not control it.

You guys continue to ask me to provide "historical" proof as to why my system would work and you say that it won't without any proof. I would like to see some proof as to why it would not work. Since I mean, I remember the U.S. constitution completely collapsing. Like I said, my realistic government is that set out in the consitution. I think that is working alright. Lets just reset it to what it was, it worked before, it can work again. No, I am NOT talking about a communal system. And no, I am not talking about Anarchy. Geeze, one mention of the A word and everyone declares me an idiot.

Well guys, I would like to thank you for this fun little argument. Keep tha ge laws, really doesn't matter in the larger picture. Yes, I know I made a complete fool of myself. Again. O-well.


Edit: The only facts and history that I have is the lack thereof. Age laws are a product of the industrial age, originating in England and then into the United States. The people wanted the children to get educated as opposed to work all day for meager wages. Not much else to say other than we as a society have advanced considerably since then.

Edit: The closest that this world has gotten to a true libertarian system is in some parts of Africa. What happened there? Someone declared themselves dictators and it has been a poverty-stricken war-zone ever since. I know that we are not at a point in our "evolution" for a libertarian system to work. However, a viable alternative lies in the Constitution.

[warbeak2099]

That entire post contained more horse manure than a Morrocan stable. He basically described his system coming into power out of a Marxist revolution and then said that he does not support communism. I say again, underdeveloped brain functions!

[OneEyedPimp]

That entire post contained more horse manure than a Morrocan stable. He basically described his system coming into power out of a Marxist revolution and then said that he does not support communism. I say again, underdeveloped brain functions!

I lied:

Did you even understand what I said? I said the revolution would not work(!). The government would simply shut it down. I believe that I implied that the people have to come to a libertarian system out of their own accord. Geeze.

Now where is that unsubscribe button...

[warbeak2099]

You're talking in circles! How are the PEOPLE going to set up this libertarian system???

[Lohman446]

This is my last post in this thread:


I accept the fact that my "views" will not work in today's modern society. It can never work, not because the views themselves are flawed, in my opinion, but because the Judo-christian values in this country, as well as most countries in the world, have created a wanting for security above all else. They also wish to project their views on everyone else, everyone is guilty of it, even I.

The only way that my views will work is if the U.S. government is overthrown. This will only happen when the U.S. progresses to a socialistic point in the far off future. Only then as people will finally realize what they have lost, allowing them to form together and get systematically wiped out by the U.S. armed forces that have been growing since 1940. Only when humanity advances to a point where we are all equals, by our own accord, and where poverty, illness, and other "reasons" to have the government are all but distant memories will my views be able to exist in a modern society.



I wonder why the Military has been growing since 1940? What could the reason be? Wait, could it be that the U.S. has taken an agressive policy of invading sovereign nations? No, that can't be the reason.

The 1.5% figure is just one to provide for the basic necessities for the Federal governement. States can apply higher taxes as necessary for their needs. Temporary taxes, larger ones, can be applied during times of war in which the army has to be grown as I do not believe in a free standing army.

No, I do not believe that the private sector should control the army, they can help but not control it.

You guys continue to ask me to provide "historical" proof as to why my system would work and you say that it won't without any proof. I would like to see some proof as to why it would not work. Since I mean, I remember the U.S. constitution completely collapsing. Like I said, my realistic government is that set out in the consitution. I think that is working alright. Lets just reset it to what it was, it worked before, it can work again. No, I am NOT talking about a communal system. And no, I am not talking about Anarchy. Geeze, one mention of the A word and everyone declares me an idiot.

Well guys, I would like to thank you for this fun little argument. Keep tha ge laws, really doesn't matter in the larger picture. Yes, I know I made a complete fool of myself. Again. O-well.


Edit: The only facts and history that I have is the lack thereof. Age laws are a product of the industrial age, originating in England and then into the United States. The people wanted the children to get educated as opposed to work all day for meager wages. Not much else to say other than we as a society have advanced considerably since then.

Edit: The closest that this world has gotten to a true libertarian system is in some parts of Africa. What happened there? Someone declared themselves dictators and it has been a poverty-stricken war-zone ever since. I know that we are not at a point in our "evolution" for a libertarian system to work. However, a viable alternative lies in the Constitution.

A) I never asked you for proof, I showed multiple disproofs. Major difference

B) I've seen enough HS "elections" to support my opinion of why minors shouldn't vote if all we need is qualitative observations, which is all you have offered.

Funny, I was going to mention Africa as another proof that libertarianism doesn't work. As to America's aggressiveness since 1940 being a change of policy... again there are historical disproofs. Consider the Naval involvement with the pirates of Barabas (sp), the Mexican American war, the westward expansion, the war of 1812... I'm sorry, again every time you try to justify your argument it gets weaker and weaker.

[teufelhunden]

I'm sorry, again every time you try to justify your argument it gets weaker and weaker.

I count that being the 9,426,582nd time that he has been told that. I wonder if 9,426,583 will do the trick.

[warbeak2099]

I count that being the 9,426,582nd time that he has been told that. I wonder if 9,426,583 will do the trick.

Silly Teufel, of course the answer is no! He can't listen to or understand reason, but he wants to be able to vote.

[OneEyedPimp]

Funny, I was going to mention Africa as another proof that libertarianism doesn't work. As to America's aggressiveness since 1940 being a change of policy... again there are historical disproofs. Consider the Naval involvement with the pirates of Barabas (sp), the Mexican American war, the westward expansion, the war of 1812... I'm sorry, again every time you try to justify your argument it gets weaker and weaker.


I never said it was a change in policy. Nor did I say that I necessarily agree with any of those. I simply stated it as the reason for the taxes required to support it.

Oh well, the 9,426,582nd is the one for me. I am stupid because I am younger, less experienced. My opinions are less because it does not conform. Oh well.

Lohman446, thank you for agruing with me as opposed to attacking me personally. My hope for humanity has been decreased by a couple degrees from this "conversation."

[teufelhunden]

You're not stupid because you're younger. I know plenty of stupid old people. You're inexperienced because you're still in high school and don't have bills to pay, books to balance, and a real life to manage. Your opinions are less because you go in a circle trying to defend them and then land back where you started saying "See? I'm right."

I'd hardly call anything myself or warbeak or whoever else said a personal attack; more an attack on your attempts at debate. I tried to argue your points [WB may have as well, I don't remember nor care to search] but you stuck to your methods and dodged or parried anything anybody brought up instead of taking their point and using logic and understanding of how things go to make a legitimate point.

In all fairness and honesty, all you've really said is "I'm young and society sees me as less of a person because of this. I don't like it and so we should change to *this is where you begin the fuzziness* because *fuzzy* and I like fuzzy animals. According to the principle of circular logic, I'm right because I am correct, hence I am right. I'll say history doesn't have a context for me to reference, but I'm correct and therefore, I am right. Your history is irrelevant. Stop personally attacking me. I want to be able to vote at age 7 and drink beer with a shotgun in hand by 9. *Fuzzy logic, jumbled points*.

Good day, sir.

[warbeak2099]

Hahaha, *spews milk out nose*. Oh I'm writing a paper I don't want to write, but you made me smile Teufel. I have a new found motivation now.

[PumpPlayer]

OEP, forgive me but I have absolutely no idea what your argument is anymore.
Nobody's calling you dumb; we just can't understand what it is you are trying to say.
As good as your 'arguments' might sound (it's on the internet and not grossly misspelled, so that's always worth a few bonus points), they lack cohesion and flow. You randomly jump around from one point to another before ending back where you started, throwing your hands up and saying, "Ta-dah!"
That is why I said your arguments are not logical.

Believe me, if you have a new system of government that would solve all of our problems, I am sure we would all be more than willing to hear about it. Tossing together conflicting points and citing unresearched material really tends to get in the way, though.



We are doubtful of your proposed system because it starts with a result (a 'perfect' society) and then works backwards to try to fix problems as they are presented. It is in no way proactive and it lacks the authority of precedence.

Oh, and whether or not you say you believe in communism or not... when you start talking about voluntary taxes and the government providing for the people but the people not having to pay for it... you're certainly headed in that direction. I hope your system isn't just "Communism, but this time it'll work!"

I really do want to hear about your perfect society. Please enlighten me as to your new system.

[Lohman446]

Oh well, the 9,426,582nd is the one for me. I am stupid because I am younger, less experienced. My opinions are less because it does not conform. Oh well.


Not exactly the point. Your not failing to uphold your arguments because of lack of proof (which I don't think is findable on a large scale) but because of failure to overcome disproofs. There have been proofs of why it does not work offered, at this point you need to find a logical way to overcome those. There have been proofs offered of the flaws in your arguments that you have not addressed.

Basically this, you have a firm understanding of the concept of libertarianism, you just do not seem to have ever addressed the weaknesses of your argument.

[nulam]

Mork from Ork gets younger as he ages. On his planet, Ork, tdddlers truly are the most sophisticated thinkers and leaders. Their society has mastered interstellar travel.

[warbeak2099]

Haha Mork and Mindy. Nanu nanu!