Posted by
Andrews on Tuesday, September 09, 2008 6:32:21 PM
I saw on the local news that there is now a movement afoot to push the driving age up to 18. Which is only fair, as I think they require teens in my state to use booster seats until they are 16. However, I do have to question the strange set of ages we have. We are constantly being pushed to increase the minimum age for driving, drinking and gun ownership, but they are now starting to overtake the voting age, as well as the age at which one can consent to sex. Similarly, there is a push, often by the same people in favor of raising the driving age, to allow children of any age to obtain an abortion without parental notification.
If this trend continues, we will have 15 years olds who can have an abortion, but not sex. Sixteen year olds who can have sex, but not drive. Eighteen year olds who can vote, but not smoke or drink, and soon not drive, but have open access to abortion. And can consent to sex with adults of any age.
Does this make sense to anyone?
The problem is that we have divergent trends. The first is the attempt to infantilize ever older teens and turn even people in their twenties into children. A second is the permissive society which wants to remove all restrictions on abortion or sexual consent. And then there is the opportunistic nanny state which uses these age limits a backdoor means to ban things they dislike, such as drinking or smoking.
As a result, we have this strange nebulous area from puberty through the early twenties where one is neither adult nor child, where some rights are given and others deferred. It is truly a confused legal area. Just to give a few examples a sixteen year old can consent to sex with a fifty year old in some states, but can't have his or her ears pierced without parental consent. He or she can be married, but not drive after 11 PM in some states.
The solution is simple, though I doubt I will live to see it enacted. We need to state that one becomes an adult at age X. Prior to that age, one may not sign contracts (except for essentials and in emergencies), obtain non-emergency medical care without parental consent, have sex with adults, vote, drive a car*, buy a handgun, drink or smoke**. After that age, there are no age based restrictions except for the holding of public office. One is an adult, and one gains full rights at that moment.
I know it flies in the face of those who think 18 year olds aren't "mature enough" to drink. But I know forty year olds who aren't mature enough to drink, yet we don't stop them. Once one is an adult, it is not our job to decide what is good for you. That is your choice, and it makes no sense for the state to try to tell you what is good for you based on your age. Either you are an adult, and possess full rights, or you don't. That's it.
--------------------------------------------------------
* Some of our current laws surrounding driving make sense provided we retain state maintained roads, some do not. Unfortunately, much of the funding is used more to enforce social engineering rather than for the good of the roads themselves. (Eg. the threat to withhold federal highway funds from states which did not enact a drinking age of 21, or who did not pass seatbelt laws pleasing to the feds.) I would like to see any restrictions related to actual needs rather than being used as policy tools. Actually, reversion to more privately or locally owned roadways would resolve a number of these issues, as owners could then decide on the rules themselves.
** Ideally, I would prefer the states not pass any laws about drinking, smoking or handguns, and leave it to the parents and vendors to make such decisions, but I doubt we will ever see that day again. At one time it was not unusual for a young child to buy beer or cigarettes to bring home to his parent, but such trust is a thing of the past. Even where the vendor knows the parent and child well enough to allow such an act, he would face a severe fine for doing so. And so, once again, the judgment of the state is substituted for that of individuals, and the possibility of a case by case decision by those involved is replaced with a "one size fits all" state imposed solution.