Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reductio Creep Lives
Radley Balko finds a case of life-imitates-Onion: In 1998, as the Master Settlement Agreement between the states and tobacco companies was being hammered out, The Onion ran a satirical piece announcing that Hostess was in legal peril for marketing Twinkies, "a dangerous snack cake linked to obesity and hyperactivity," to minors. Earlier this week, the FTC issued a series of "self-regulatory" (for now) recommendations that would constrain the marketing of junk food to minors.
Dave W.|5.5.06 @ 10:50AM|#
What is the libertarian position on selling cigarettes to minors? Are we for that particular freedom here? Is Nannystatism inherent in that prohibition? Why or why not?
|5.5.06 @ 10:57AM|#
I'm not surprised. At least no more so than when I found out that I wasn't going to get fucked.
R C Dean|5.5.06 @ 11:02AM|#
What is the libertarian position on selling cigarettes to
minors?
Whether a kid smokes or not is the parent's call, not the
state's.
Is Nannystatism inherent in that prohibition?
Why, yes, yes it is.
MP|5.5.06 @ 11:09AM|#
R C,
I have a difficult time agreeing that Alcohol, Heroin, and
Prescriptions should be freely available to 8 year olds. Dave's
question is one of that leads down the path of question the
extremes at the opposite end of nannystatism, and I have a hard
time answering the subtext of that question.
I don't have much of a problem with "for the children" legislation
that particularly targets minors and has no impact on adults. It is
regulations that impact both in the name of the children (such as
broadcast rules or advertising restrictions) that I object to on
the grounds of nannystatism.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.5.06 @ 11:15AM|#
JMJ-So consequences only come from the
government?
Please don't.
|5.5.06 @ 11:16AM|#
Do we not count on the government to keep an eye on our kids
when we are not there to watch them?
JMJ
|5.5.06 @ 11:19AM|#
Not if we're smart we don't JMJ.
For christssakes, these are the idiots who a week ago wanted to buy
us off with a $100 check. You trust those fools with your
children?
Timothy|5.5.06 @ 11:20AM|#
When my dad was a kid he got caught nicking cigarettes from my
grandfather. Granddad took him out behind the barn, and made him
smoke until he threw up. He was about 10, so it didn't exactly take
all that long. Dad hasn't smoked a cigarette since, far as I know,
although he does favor a cigar every now and again.
But in the case of junk food, have we really gone so far astray
that Mom & Dad saying "no" just isn't good enough anymore?
Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.5.06 @ 11:21AM|#
Wow. We've reach a whole new level of trolling
here.
And they keep feeding him in every thread.
Timothy|5.5.06 @ 11:25AM|#
TPG: I'm with you man, just ignore him. I can't help but feed
Dave W. every now and again, but he's at least usally somewhat
thoughtful.
As an aside: do you wonder if this obesity crisis is really just
envy-based? Europeans are skinnier, we've got to do something about
it! BE SKINNIER AMERICA! In an odd way it reminds me of the
mistaken class-warfare ideology. In the same way that another man's
success in no way inhibits my own because the economy is not a
zero-sum game, somebody being fat doesn't make my life worse in any
measurable way so why should it concern me in the least? I mean,
sure, fat folks can be unpleasant to look at on the beach or
whatever, but there's plenty of other ugly shit around anyway.
|5.5.06 @ 11:34AM|#
James,
"For christssakes, these are the idiots who a week ago wanted to
buy us off with a $100 check. You trust those fools with your
children?"
While I concede the government is made up of the same bungling
boobs the rest of our society is made up of, why on Earth would you
NOT want the government (cops, courts, probate officers,
surrogates, teachers, etc) to act as an extension of our authority
when we are not around?
For christ's sake - is there such a thing as a libertarian over 15
years of age?!?!
I've seen idiots around here argue that kids should be able to do
anything they want, anywhere they want - they're friggin kids! I've
read morons going on about how schools should proffer junk food -
public friggin schools! It's like saying, "I would hire a
babysitter to come over my house and feed my kids junk food, or,
better yet, sell them junk food for a profit!"
What the hell is the matter with you people?
JMJ
MP|5.5.06 @ 11:37AM|#
How is it that by begging the question of the upper bound of liberty for minors, Dave gets labeled and a troll?
|5.5.06 @ 11:40AM|#
When my dad was a kid he got caught nicking cigarettes from
my grandfather. Granddad took him out behind the barn, and made him
smoke until he threw up.
I remember a friend's parent using your granddad's method when I
was a kid. Can you imagine how quickly DCF would have the kids out
of there if someone tried that today?
|5.5.06 @ 11:44AM|#
I don't have much of a problem with "for the children"
legislation that particularly targets minors and has no impact on
adults.
If you happen to find such a measure, please let me know. There's
nothing I can think of that purports to target only "children" and
has no effect on adults; in fact, most "for the children" measures
have significant effects on adults.
The current concept and definitiion of children is based almost
entirely on what's convenient at the moment for the person using
the word. How can a society that claims to be free allow such a
loosely defined, inconsistently applied concept to determine
whether a person has their rights honored or infringed?
Allowing the government to so openly, blatantly trample the rights
of any group of people will come back to hurt all of us, esp when
the government is one that we've allowed to determine who's in that
group.
Timothy|5.5.06 @ 11:45AM|#
Goiter was labelling JMJ a troll, I might have confused the
issue. I apologize. Dave is only sort of a troll, but I must say
that he's become a lot less troll-like recently, bordering on
interesting.
David: Yeah, they'd be on you like white on rice for that these
days. How dare anyone try to discipline their kids! Disclipline
children? That's unpossible!
MP|5.5.06 @ 11:50AM|#
If you happen to find such a measure, please let me
know.
Tell me how banning a minor from purchasing an particular product
does anything more than mildly inconvenience an adult (by forcing
the display of an ID).
Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.5.06 @ 11:50AM|#
TPG: I'm with you man, just ignore him. I can't help but
feed Dave W. every now and again, but he's at least usally somewhat
thoughtful.
Dave is a troll that throws out something decent to stay
"respected" as a foil. In his own mind at least.
JMJO has set up shop under the bridge and deserves no human
interaction.
As an aside: do you wonder if this obesity crisis is really
just envy-based? Europeans are skinnier, we've got to do something
about it! BE SKINNIER AMERICA! In an odd way it reminds me of the
mistaken class-warfare ideology. In the same way that another man's
success in no way inhibits my own because the economy is not a
zero-sum game, somebody being fat doesn't make my life worse in any
measurable way so why should it concern me in the least? I mean,
sure, fat folks can be unpleasant to look at on the beach or
whatever, but there's plenty of other ugly shit around
anyway.
I don't see it as a crisis. For a very long time, the wealthy were
envied because of their girth. Rather than starving on scraps,
gruel, and slop, they were living high on the hog. Now everyone in
this country is well off enough to overeat, and many have work that
allows them to avoid physical effort.
The "crisis" again comes down to personal choice. There are
multiple decision points made each day on diet and it's up to the
individual to maximize their happiness, taste, effort and health in
each decision. If some individuals choose to maximize taste and
effort at the expense of health, so be it, that is a personal
decision.
Thomas Paine's Goiter|5.5.06 @ 11:52AM|#
How is it that by begging the question of the upper bound of
liberty for minors, Dave gets labeled and a troll?
Previous bad acts.
|5.5.06 @ 11:59AM|#
The "crisis" again comes down to personal choice. There are
multiple decision points made each day on diet and it's up to the
individual to maximize their happiness, taste, effort and health in
each decision. If some individuals choose to maximize taste and
effort at the expense of health, so be it, that is a personal
decision.
Agreed, TP's Goiter. But I think that sentiment would embolden
those who feel you have no right to make a "wrong" choice.
Tell me how banning a minor from purchasing an particular
product does anything more than mildly inconvenience an adult (by
forcing the display of an ID).
MP,
Do you think the nanny-types would be satisfied by banning minors
from making any purchases at all? That would make each and every
purchase the sole discretion of the parents.
|5.5.06 @ 11:59AM|#
I think JMJ might've been standing behind him, overshadowing his
legitmate concern with his own brand of silliness.
Dave W: I believe "libertarianism" is an ideal for society-at-large
to attain by themselves, particularly without the help of
government.
That being said, I've heard a story of a parent buying a cig for
her child, aged 12 or so, in a store and even going so far as to
ask "What brand, honey?" If children want to smoke, they should
have to do it with their parents, not hiding in the alley with the
"cool kids".
While not allowing the sell IS an extension of the nanny-state, I
doubt very many would oppose that (very) particular facet of it,
even if they do worry about nanny-creep.
Everybody: Knock off the gotcha-games, quit feeding the troll.
Thank you.
MP|5.5.06 @ 12:05PM|#
Do you think the nanny-types would be satisfied by banning
minors from making any purchases at all? That would make each and
every purchase the sole discretion of the parents.
No. Statists are statists and constantly seek new ways to meddle.
My point is that from a libertarian perspective, it is hard to
argue that the banning of sale of any item to a minor
isn't potentially a legitimate exercise of the state's police
power.
|5.5.06 @ 12:12PM|#
why on Earth would you NOT want the government (cops,
courts, probate officers, surrogates, teachers, etc) to act as an
extension of our authority when we are not around?
Extension of who's authority? Mine, yours, the person down the
street?
Who's authority does the government extend? What happens when the
government extends itself much further into the (harmless to other
of course) actions of my kid than I would or would like it
to?
When the government applies one parent's idea of rules to all
"children", they step all over what another parent would have
done.
What if a parent decides that they not only trust their kid to do
the right thing, but they know them better than anyone else and
have no problem whatsoever in letting their kid go with their
friends at any hour they want?
What if the parent has no problem whatsoever in letting their kid
buy, sell, play, make, use any type of entertainment media they
desire?
If the government is really just an extension of my authority, it
would leave the kid the hell alone.
The only true libertarian solution would be to get the government
out of the parental authority extension business. What a kid does
that hurts no one else is exclusively between that kid and his
parent(s).
At some point, someone will bring up the fact that some parents
neglect their kids. Well, to start, the actions of truly neglectful
ADULTS should not be used to justify burdening and restricting
children and young adults who've done nothing wrong.
Another example of this unfair shifting of burden is the curreent
myspace hysteria-a very small number of adult predators troll this
site, that has a claimed membership of 40-60 million, for young
people to prey on. The primary solution to this predatory adult
behavior? Restrict the young people who use the site.
Some Masshole (MA AG to be exact) wants Myspace to raise their age
limit to 18 because of the small number of adults preying on cops
pretending to be people under 18 and the much smaller number of
confirmed incidents where braindead witless young people have made
contact with adult predators in meatspace (pun sort of
intended).
If age limits are the solution, protecting teens the goal, and
adults the ones causing all the problems, why not suggest setting
an upper age limit? You know, burden the age group who's members
are causing the problem?
Since the generation so fond of this age limit nonsense also seems
to have had a mantra of "Don't trust anyone over 30", I suggest we
impart that advice to the current generation of young people and
also ask that myspace adopt a policy along those lines.
Back to neglect. Neglect seems to be another one of those words
with a legitimate largely agreed upon core definition and another
definition that exists solely at the convenience of the person
using the word. It's very heavily used to define a parent who lets
their kid do something the speaker doesn't like, agree with, and/or
understand. An example is the "restrict/ban video games" crowd,
regularly implying that parents who let their kids play certain
types of video games are inept or neglectful in their duties and
the call for these parents to "start parenting" or "be a parent",
etc.
If a parent decides they have no problem with their kid playing any
video game they get their hands on, are they being neglectful or "a
parent"?
|5.5.06 @ 12:15PM|#
One of the things that bugs me is that when a minor buys cigarettes or alcohol or a violent game or whatever and breaks the law, it's the shopowner who gets punished and not the kid or his parents.
|5.5.06 @ 12:21PM|#
Tell me how banning a minor from purchasing an particular
product does anything more than mildly inconvenience an adult (by
forcing the display of an ID).
Are you new here?
Every anti-alcohol, tobacco, gun, car, porn group uses the
'children' issue as a wedge to open the door to restricting adult
freedom. They add more and more hoops in the name of "the childre".
Groups want to tax alcohol to make it more expensive for people
under 21, which also makes it more expensive for adults. The CSPI
wants malt beverages banned or severely taxed to keep people under
21 from getting them.
Anti-porn groups contintually push for more restrictive zoning,
floor space, content, hours of operation, staffing, security etc.
restrictions on current and prospective businesses, the Bush
administration is pushing for internet search records as part of
their case in support of the law "protecting" "children" from
porn.
Some Anti-tobacco groups range from wanting smoking banned in
places "children" regularly requent to wanting it banned in all
places "children" are present (subtle, but significant difference
between these two).
Gun control groups want adults forced to buy trigger locks with
every gun with penalties for not using. Some groups demand various
mechanical interlocks-click on/off safties, magazine disconnects,
and even "smart" guns all in the name of protecting children.
All of these things impact adults quite a bit despite their "for
the children" auspices, and this is just what I could think of
immediately after reading your post.
|5.5.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Brendan, your posts are awesome - I am in complete agreement. I
would also say, however, that even when people think it should be
illegal for a minor to buy cigarettes or alcohol or whatever, they
punish the wrong party when the law is broken. In no way should a
shopkeeper or store owner ever have to be put into the position of
being some brat's legal guardian.
If we want to make a law that says it's illegal for minors to buy
cigarettes, punish the kid who breaks the law or his "neglectful"
parents.
I agree with you that the government has no business interfering in
the first place, but I'm just pointing out that not only is the
ideology behind this interference wrong, the implementation sucks,
too.
MP|5.5.06 @ 12:31PM|#
Are you new here?
Quite the contrary. And introducing a slippery slope argument
simply dodges my question. I was very specific in regards to asking
about banning sales of "unsafe" products to minors. I was not, as
you imply, talking about making the world safe for children.
Dave W.|5.5.06 @ 12:33PM|#
btw, my own beliefs on the kids and cigs and junk food thing is
as follows:
1. Cigarettes should be forbidden due the addictiveness.
2. Junk food should not be legally prohibited to children on
obesity grounds because children need to learn to maintain a
healthy weight, and choice (for the children) is a helpful (and
maybe even neccessary) condition to foster this personal
reponsibility.
3. It may be okay to prohibit junk food sales to kids on diabetes
grounds. Diabetes is even less reversible than a nicotine
addiction. However, I don't think diabetes is yet a big enuf
problem to justify banning the sale of junk food to minors. This
belief is subject to change if diabetes gets bad enough.
4. I share the concerns on this thread about prohibitions on sales
to children being used strategically to try to exert gov't control
over the behaviors of adults. I think that happens far too much in
various areas and I don't like it
So, my current views on the kids & commerce are more pragmatic
than philosophical. Regular readers may be surprised to see how
much I think obesity is a personal responsibility problem, rather
than a problem to be solved by the government. Even if HFCS does
somehow make you fatter than other sugars, an individual has plenty
of time to look down at his stomach, see it bulge, and make the
appropriate corrections (as I have in my own life).
|5.5.06 @ 12:36PM|#
To all the Trollinators - that's right, show us all how
incurious and closed-minded you are!
Brandon,
why on Earth would you NOT want the government (cops, courts,
probate officers, surrogates, teachers, etc) to act as an extension
of our authority when we are not around?
"Extension of who's authority? Mine, yours, the person down the
street?"
The parent(s).
"Who's authority does the government extend? What happens when the
government extends itself much further into the (harmless to other
of course) actions of my kid than I would or would like it
to?"
That's why we have a constituion, laws, and a representative
democracy.
"When the government applies one parent's idea of rules to all
"children", they step all over what another parent would have
done."
But that's not what the government is doing. It's representing,
democratically, the wishes of most parents.
"What if a parent decides that they not only trust their kid to do
the right thing, but they know them better than anyone else and
have no problem whatsoever in letting their kid go with their
friends at any hour they want?"
There's nothing to stop that.
"What if the parent has no problem whatsoever in letting their kid
buy, sell, play, make, use any type of entertainment media they
desire?"
Well, that parent (slob that they are) can always buy whatever they
want for their kids.
"If the government is really just an extension of my authority, it
would leave the kid the hell alone."
Good for you.
"The only true libertarian solution would be to get the government
out of the parental authority extension business. What a kid does
that hurts no one else is exclusively between that kid and his
parent(s)."
That second sentence is already true. Do you have an example of the
government interfering with this in some way?
"At some point, someone will bring up the fact that some parents
neglect their kids. Well, to start, the actions of truly neglectful
ADULTS should not be used to justify burdening and restricting
children and young adults who've done nothing wrong."
If they've done nothing wrong, there is no restriction.
"Another example of this unfair shifting of burden is the curreent
myspace hysteria-a very small number of adult predators troll this
site, that has a claimed membership of 40-60 million, for young
people to prey on. The primary solution to this predatory adult
behavior? Restrict the young people who use the site."
Well, we'll see where that goes. I get the feeling that would be
impossible to do.
"If age limits are the solution, protecting teens the goal, and
adults the ones causing all the problems, why not suggest setting
an upper age limit? You know, burden the age group who's members
are causing the problem?"
Good idea.
"If a parent decides they have no problem with their kid playing
any video game they get their hands on, are they being neglectful
or "a parent"?"
No - but they may be making a big mistake.
JMJ
Rich Ard|5.5.06 @ 12:51PM|#
To all the Trollinators - that's right, show us all how
incurious and closed-minded you are!
Do your trick, pony!
lunchstealer|5.5.06 @ 12:57PM|#
Jersey, if you had any reading comprehension skills, you might
be able to crawl out from under the bridge. NOBODY here as said
that schools "should sell junk food" - what they've said is that
schools should be ALLOWED to sell junk food. I don't think they
should do it, but I don't think the Feds should make that choice. I
think that that choice can be made at the local level.
But you're so interested in being superior to us, that you NEVER
figure out what we're saying. You drop four key words to turn our
argument into a stupid argument, so you can call us stupid. It's
strawmanning, and its TROLLISH BULLSHIT.
And if you really do beleive that people have said most of the
things you think we've said, then I'll have to appologize because
you're not a troll, you're just utterly without reading
comprehension skills. Either way, you're a disgrace to the
left.
|5.5.06 @ 1:05PM|#
I was very specific in regards to asking about banning sales
of "unsafe" products to minors. I was not, as you imply, talking
about making the world safe for children.
As far as I can see, the two concepts are joined at the hip. It's
never been enough for something "unsafe" to simply be banned for
purchase by "minors". It may start that way, but it expands. Soon
there are laws against possessing, purchasing for minors,
advertising to minors, encouraging minors to possess, sales venue
restrictions, etc., courts begin holding parents neglectful for
allowing use,possession, purchase, etc.
I don't see anyway to confine it to simply saying no sales to
persons under 18-which is a concept I don't agree with.
|5.5.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Brandon,
Brendan
"Extension of who's authority? Mine, yours, the person down the
street?"
parent(s).
Which parents? I wasn't referring to just strangers in the street.
Which group of parents' rules oes the government follow?
When the government applies one parent's idea of rules to all
"children", they step all over what another parent would have
done."
But that's not what the government is doing. It's
representing, democratically, the wishes of most
parents.
To the exclusion or detrement of other parents.
"What if a parent decides that they not only trust their kid to
do the right thing, but they know them better than anyone else and
have no problem whatsoever in letting their kid go with their
friends at any hour they want?"
There's nothing to stop that.
Except the police ie., curfew laws.
"What if the parent has no problem whatsoever in letting their
kid buy, sell, play, make, use any type of entertainment media they
desire?"
Well, that parent (slob that they are) can always buy
whatever they want for their kids.
Slob? Why should a parent have to be joined at the hip to their kid
just so th kid can buy a movie/video game/cd? Why can't they
delegate their authority?
"The only true libertarian solution would be to get the
government out of the parental authority extension business. What a
kid does that hurts no one else is exclusively between that kid and
his parent(s)."
That second sentence is already true. Do you have an
example of the government interfering with this in some
way?
Numerous. If a kid drinks a beer, hurts no one and is "caught" in a
bar or at a friends house, he/she can be arrested. If they are
outside after 9p-1a (depending on the area), they can be arrested.
Being outside and/or drinking a beer are, in and of themselves
actions, that hurt no one, yet they are criminalized. Some states
want to criminalize the sale of "violent" media to people under
18.
"At some point, someone will bring up the fact that some
parents neglect their kids. Well, to start, the actions of truly
neglectful ADULTS should not be used to justify burdening and
restricting children and young adults who've done nothing
wrong."
If they've done nothing wrong, there is no
restriction.
I assume you mean if the kids have done nothing wrong they face no
restriction?
Curfews, drinking age, restrictions on driving entertainment,
firearm and other self-defense tools, living arrangements, etc. All
are in the name of protecting teens from themselves and "helping
parents".
"Another example of this unfair shifting of burden is the
curreent myspace hysteria-a very small number of adult predators
troll this site, that has a claimed membership of 40-60 million,
for young people to prey on. The primary solution to this predatory
adult behavior? Restrict the young people who use the
site."
Well, we'll see where that goes. I get the feeling that
would be impossible to do.
Impossible to accomplish? It's still a burden to honest teens who
don't want to lie about their age and "suspected" "underage" teens
who are snagged by whatever software the site claims to use to sort
out people currently under 14
"If a parent decides they have no problem with their kid
playing any video game they get their hands on, are they being
neglectful or "a parent"?"
No - but they may be making a big mistake.
An opinion. Valid and one I understand, but not something that
should be put into law or pushed on another entity by the
government.
|5.5.06 @ 1:23PM|#
I would also say, however, that even when people think it
should be illegal for a minor to buy cigarettes or alcohol or
whatever, they punish the wrong party when the law is broken. In no
way should a shopkeeper or store owner ever have to be put into the
position of being some brat's legal guardian.
Agreed. Laws that criminalize sales to minors essentially shift the
burden from parents on to shopkeepers.
A lot of people justify parental authority under the idea that
parents are responsible for their kids actions. Except for a
limited financial sense, this is false. Yes, parents are sometimes
responsible for a token amount of damages their kid does, but it's
the kid who goes to a juvenile boot camp or does work crew detail
to pay back the damage.
If parents are truly "responsible for their kids actions", we
wouldn't need juvenile courts or juvenile halls. It would be the
parents and only the parents who face the penalties. Start that
ball rolling and we'll see who wants to "protect" children through
criminalization of everything even remotely harmful to them.
|5.5.06 @ 1:46PM|#
A child's diet should be a function of parenting, not
government. If a parent wants to give a kid a few bucks and
exercise some decision making about what they eat for lunch,
neither the federal government nor a consortium of regulators and
trial attorneys should get in the way. If a local school board
wants to get between parents and what children are allowed to buy
at school, then I have very few problems with that.
...other than the usual regarding the eternal and forever failure
that public education, in my humble opinion, will always be. ...The
Libertarian Party--it's the party of parents, people.
|5.5.06 @ 1:53PM|#
In other words, your opinion of what other people feed their children should only be interesting to people who find your opinon interesting. ...as opposed to law makers and everyone who either has a child or might have a child.
|5.5.06 @ 2:19PM|#
Quite the contrary. And introducing a slippery slope
argument simply dodges my question. I was very specific in regards
to asking about banning sales of "unsafe" products to minors. I was
not, as you imply, talking about making the world safe for
children.
MP, you know as well as anyone that a concept like "unsafe" can be
twisted mean almost anything, and usually is. As far as the little
inconveniences associated with the enforcement of such legislation,
it's both that they add up after a while, and create an opportunity
for police entrapment. After all, the way to prove that such
measures work is to arrest violators.
Timothy|5.5.06 @ 2:30PM|#
Agreed. Laws that criminalize sales to minors essentially
shift the burden from parents on to shopkeepers.
This is SOP for regulators, just look at how much spying banks are
required to do in the name of preventing money laundering.
|5.5.06 @ 2:37PM|#
I was very specific in regards to asking about banning sales
of "unsafe" products to minors.
MP, the problem is that any clown can (and does) come along at any
time, and show that any thing on this Earth is "unsafe" for minors.
Because they're right. Just about any object you can see around you
right now is unsafe for kids when those kids aren't properly
supervised.
Case in point:
Magnetix toys. Magnetix have been around for years, but because
young kids (often younger than the recommended age on the
packaging, because everyone seems to think their kids are such
geniuses that the guidelines don't apply to them) swallow the loose
magnets when they're not properly supervised, now Magnetix is
considered "unsafe" and manufacturer RoseArt has to recall many of
their products.
Obviously, swallowing any toy part is bad for a kid's health. So
what's to stop the mob with the torches and pitchforks from coming
after Lego, Playmobil, Barbie, Bratz, Crayola, Polly Pocket, Hot
Wheels, or anybody else? For that matter, common office supplies
like paper and binder clips, pen caps, pencil leads, and staples
are pretty nasty on the insides when swallowed, so how 'bout we ban
those, too? Most coins are toxic and filthy...shall we ban coin
currency? Kids can drown in a shallow bucket of water, so gotta ban
buckets, too. Good luck getting that deck paint home in a big
Ziploc baggie, that's all I can say.
Everything in our world is unsafe, especially for kids. That's why
they're considered immature beings who require supervision. And
still, sometimes, kids die. People die, and statistically speaking,
some of those people are kids. No matter how much legislation there
is, no matter how onerous the restrictions placed upon adult life
in the name of the precious children, children still manage to
die.
MP|5.5.06 @ 4:38PM|#
MP, the problem is that any clown can (and does) come along
at any time, and show that any thing on this Earth is "unsafe" for
minors.
Natural Rights do not extend to minors in the same way they do to
adults, due to the inability to impose an expectation of absolute
responsibility on the immature. Given that a minor should not be
held absolutely responsible for their actions, the police power of
the state can legitimately be argued as being usable to protect
minors from their own irresponsibility. This protection should not,
however, come at the cost of denying the Natural Rights of other
adults in society. If you agree with this premise, then the issue
becomes a matter of line drawing. When does a law protecting minors
encroach too far on rights of adults vs. simply being an
inconvenience? If you don't agree with this premise, then you
implicitly agree that minors should be entitled to buy anything
without parental consent, including shotguns and crack. I simply
don't accept the idea that minors have absolute rights and are
unbounded by parental consent.
Robert|5.5.06 @ 4:59PM|#
Think the laws could make exceptions for children who aren't
expected to live much past 20 YO? For instance, my cousin with
Duchenne's muscular dystrophy just about made it to 21 YO.
It obviously makes no sense for us to concern ourselves with their
long term health. Couldn't their maturity level for adult pleasures
be pro rated for their life expectancy?
|5.5.06 @ 6:37PM|#
Do we not count on the government to keep an eye on our kids
when we are not there to watch them?
I warn my daughter to watch out for the government when I'm not
around. I've informed her starting at a very young age, that there
are unscrupulous clip-board wielding agents of social control out
to get her. Only time will tell if the lessons have stuck. But on a
serious note:
fuck no.
|5.5.06 @ 6:39PM|#
When my dad was a kid he got caught nicking cigarettes from
my grandfather. Granddad took him out behind the barn, and made him
smoke until he threw up.
Timothy:
Your granddad would be in federal prison had this happened in these
here modern times.
|5.5.06 @ 6:42PM|#
Earth would you NOT want the government (cops, courts,
probate officers, surrogates, teachers, etc) to act as an extension
of our authority when we are not around?
What on earth does this have to do with regulating snack foods to
minors? Since when did one = the other?
|5.5.06 @ 7:12PM|#
You can always tell how wealthy a society is by the sheer
mind-numbing pettiness of their problems.
We eat too many calories. That's in the Top 10.
3 billion other people on this planet should be so lucky.
God-damned progressatives won't be happy until they've squeezed
(read litigated) every ounce of joy out of life. Even then, that
won't be enough. Someone, somehwere will still be thinking for
themsleves and (oh, the horror) having fun.
|5.5.06 @ 7:37PM|#
Natural Rights do not extend to minors in the same way they
do to adults, due to the inability to impose an expectation of
absolute responsibility on the immature.
The concept of "minor" is a government created one and has been
changed over time to fit various, largely adult, needs. Depending
on what were talking about AND where, it can be 18,19,or 21-I don't
see a lot of 20 age limits.
"Minor" status does not equal immature. This is my biggest problem
with the concept of denying rights to "minors". We claim it's about
immaturity and then fail to acknowledge that many people below that
artificial threshold are mature and many above are not.
If we define "absolute responsibility" as that level to which
adults are held, then our society does indeed hold people well
under the adult/minor age threshold to absolute
responsiblity.
Teens pay taxes on their income at the same rates as others in
their bracket, pay the same traffic fines, government fees, sales
taxes, are regularly tried as adults in all states for numerous
offenses, are automatically routed into criminal court for ALL
offenses in several states at 16 and/or 17, in many states juvenile
offenders are held in custody for an equal or greater period than
adults for the same offense.
Our society has little or no problem "bending the rules" to hold a
"minor" accountable like an adult, but has huge problems budging an
inch to allow "minors" to have anything near an adult level of
rights and privileges.
Basically, when it comes to a "minor"'s accountability for criminal
actions, age is irrelevant-it's only the act that matters.
Yet, when it comes to enjoying (currently adult)rights and
privileges, age is the only that matters-nothing will allow a
person under 18 to vote, a person under 21 to walk in a bar and
drink a beer.
Given that a minor should not be held absolutely responsible
for their actions, the police power of the state can legitimately
be argued as being usable to protect minors from their own
irresponsibility.
Maybe minors "shouldn't" be held absolutely responsible for their
actions, but they currently are.
The police power of the state still has no business protecting all
"minors" from presumed irresponsibility. Minor!=irresponsible.
Again, protecting minors from whatever degree of irresponsibility
they may have is still the parents' responsibility.
This protection should not, however, come at the cost of
denying the Natural Rights of other adults in society. If you agree
with this premise, then the issue becomes a matter of line drawing.
When does a law protecting minors encroach too far on rights of
adults vs. simply being an inconvenience? If you don't agree with
this premise, then you implicitly agree that minors should be
entitled to buy anything without parental consent, including
shotguns and crack. I simply don't accept the idea that minors have
absolute rights and are unbounded by parental consent.
They are not unbound by parental consent, it's just that the
government should not be imposing a parental consent requirements
on anything. If a kid buys something his/her parents don't like,
that's their problem. Essentially it would be assumed that a
"minor" has parental consent until proven otherwise.
MP|5.5.06 @ 8:57PM|#
Brendan,
Stop cherry picking the easily debateable cases and skirting around
the hard ones. Is it your opinion that 8-year olds should be
unconditionally allowed to buy crack and shotguns? A six year old?
A four year old?
What you are doing is redrawing the lines to fit your preferred
boundaries without recognizing the fact that you are engaging in
line drawing. I know that age is an arbitrary indicator of
maturity. But a predictable legal system cannot be established
along arbitrary lines. Yes, some vagueness belongs in the law, but
in many circumstances it is preferable to have a bright line. If
you want to claim that age should not be a relevant factor in the
law, you are still claiming the need for a maturity "standard" that
judges could use to level-set their opinions against. If you deny
even the need for a maturity standard, then you are back to selling
crack to 4 year olds.
And your opinion that minors are currently being held absolutely
accountable for their actions is a gross misrepresentation of
realty. Stop defining a minor as sixteen and start working with the
hard case. An 8-year old involved in an act of manslaughter is not
charged with manslaughter and given 10 years in hard time.
|5.5.06 @ 10:54PM|#
Stop cherry picking the easily debateable cases and skirting
around the hard ones.
I'm picking the most absurd ones and the "easiest" because that's
the best place to start. The most egregious examples of government
waste are the first ones to be loudly reported and dealt with
Is it your opinion that 8-year olds should be unconditionally
allowed to buy crack and shotguns? A six year old? A four year
old?
YES all three times. First you have to find a 8,6, or 4 year old
unsupervised, with the desire and money to buy a shotgun or crack,
as well as the knowledge of WHERE to buy them. The chances of that
are probably one in 500,000 for 8 year olds (so we might have eight
8 year olds in country try to buy a shotgun if all age limits were
lifted), stretching into the billions for the 4 year old. Never
gonna happen. When it does it'll be a non-issue because it will
probably be years before it happens again-parents will now have
incentive to talk to their kids and not expect the government to
play one-size-fits-all proxy parent.
The laws I talk about are not aimed at 4-8 year olds, they're
almost universally aimed at post pubescent persons in the 11-17 age
range.
What you are doing is redrawing the lines to fit your preferred
boundaries without recognizing the fact that you are engaging in
line drawing.
I'm doing no such thing. I don't think age needs to be the most
important factor and sure as hell doesn't need to be the sole
deciding factor. i'm asking for another standard or significant
loosening of laws towards people under whatever age. I don't want a
line in the sand, but if there is one it should probably be moved
back and blurred quite a bit.
I know that age is an arbitrary indicator of maturity. But a
predictable legal system cannot be established along arbitrary
lines. Yes, some vagueness belongs in the law, but in many
circumstances it is preferable to have a bright line.
Very true.
Although, the justice system has no problem doing individual,
almost arbitrary, assessments when it comes to trying teens as
adults and the 22/19 or so states that pre-2005 SCOTUS decision had
the death penalty for crimes committed at 17/16 had all sorts of
tests they would do to certify teens as adults.
If the government can use a test certify a teen as an adult for
criminal proceedings, they can sure as hell use that very same test
to certify a teen able to drink a beer.
Perhaps the easiest way to do this would be to set the age of
majority to the same age as the age where a person can be tried as
an adult. We would see an immediate drop to around 12-14 in most
states.
Also, a great deal of this age restriction boundary issue becomes
irrelevant when the government stops playing O-S-F-A-proxy-parent
(I should just refer to this as "OSFAPP" from here on in. :)
If you want to claim that age should not be a relevant factor
in the law, you are still claiming the need for a maturity
"standard" that judges could use to level-set their opinions
against. If you deny even the need for a maturity standard, then
you are back to selling crack to 4 year olds.
First I'd have to find a 4 year old with money and desire to buy
crack-of course...
Perhaps a loosened emancipation standard as an interim measure, the
judges could use the adult trial certification tests as proof of
maturity.
And your opinion that minors are currently being held
absolutely accountable for their actions is a gross
misrepresentation of realty. Stop defining a minor as sixteen and
start working with the hard case.
Why should I define minor any different the government when arguing
against the treatment of those "minors"? I'll move off the issue of
16=minor when the government does. In the meantime, 16 year olds
ARE currently defined as minors by the legal system-when convenient
anyway.
But I think I get it. I shouldn't deal with the extremely common
everyday asininity almost exclusively directed at young people past
puberty, rather, I should deal with the one in a million
possibility of a 10 year old buying crack. This whole 4-10 year
olds buying crack thing is really absurd. A 4 year old who actually
buys crack is not going to be stopped by an age limit. What makes
you think that current age restrictions as the sole barrier to such
a transaction? Selling crack is still illegal.
When it comes time to finally end drug prohibition, we can talk
about the one-4 year old, two-6 year olds, maybe five-8 year olds,
and maybe seven or eight-10 year olds in the entire country that
would actually try to go through with a crack purchase.
An 8-year old involved in an act of manslaughter is not charged
with manslaughter and given 10 years in hard time.
Probably because they're so hard to find. It's probably tough to
track him down. I'd like to find more than one or even two in the
last 15 or years who's ctually committed a criminal act of
manslaughter.
|5.7.06 @ 9:07AM|#
God-damned progressatives won't be happy until they've
squeezed (read litigated) every ounce of joy out of life. Even
then, that won't be enough. Someone, somehwere will still be
thinking for themsleves and (oh, the horror) having fun.
Maybe I'm a fool, but I still have hope that enough people will get
fed up and annihilate these people before your scenario plays
out.
I quote (or maybe paraphrase):
Some people should die; that's just unconscious knowledge.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245