> This prohibition, 16 plaintiffs ages 5 to 22 successfully argued
A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?
A 5 year old being used in a lawsuit? Really?
Less generous take would be "enviro-hobby parents pimp out their pre-K kids for a publicity stunt"
Young people get thrown under the bus, politically, all over the west. Non-dischargeable loans, reduction in spending for youth clubs, completely ignoring their needs when it comes to city planning.
We are literally destroying the future of our society.
I suspect there may be a reason in that in the present (and past) children really don't get the final say on anything really.
Edit: I responded to your pre-edit comment. I don't live in the city, have any debts, etc. nor am I child so I don't know the social state they are in.
In fact the only point I made that you addressed you said wasn't relevant. So I will repeat myself clearly for others that are confused. Five year olds can not be expected to advocate for themselves. Five year olds do not get the final say on decisions concerning them.
Edit: What children would say with their soapbox is very much relevant it illustrates my above points.
Furthermore is it common practice to do edits without annotations? They are really annoying to keep up with frankly. This is the 2nd in this chain alone.
(As for edits, maybe you’re responding to someone other than me, but my comment was not edited in any way.)
This is essentially the same reason that women didn't have the vote in the past. They didn't need it. Because the man of the house was the representative of the entire family: husband, wife, children, servants, other relatives living on the land. A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family. Western consumerism and individualism, killing off the concept of the family, has caused everyone to decide they need to individually represent themselves and their own selfish interests, rather than their family, neighborhood, community, employer, etc.
For example, imagine a family where the children have different hobbies and preferences from their parents. The parents might not always make choices that reflect what's best for each child individually. Similarly, a man voting for his entire family in the past wouldn't necessarily know or consider the unique needs of his wife, children, or servants. Individual voices matter, and while parents have a vital role in supporting their children, comparing this to historical voting practices doesn't make sense.
Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.)
See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values.
Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family.
But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.
Then why didn't they let the lady of the household have the sole vote? Wouldn't her vote also represent the collective interests of the entire family?
Do imprisoned felons have the right to vote? Do they have a warden voting on their behalf?
Cases like this give them an opportunity to argue their position. It's not as though they are actually making the decisions.
Millions of middle-aged and elderly Americans believe global warming is a scam because that's what conspiracy theorists told them. Have you seen the things these Q-Anon folk believe because some fool on the internet told them so?
(And if we're going to limit rights to people who can understand complicated issues and make balanced arguments about them, an awful lot of 85-yer olds are going to be in a bit of a pickle. I agree, though, that it would be interesting to explore excluding anyone who, say, needs to wear diapers from both political and legal processes... There is a minimum voting age, after all, why not a maximum one?)
Or are you saying they don't know what those words mean?
I think you can get a meaningful testimony from them (yes, "I like hiking, I like swimming in our local lakes, I want policies that protect our environment because I want to continue to be able to enjoy it" - nothing here seems incredible for a five year old to say)
You might ask "ok but why? Isn't the case well represented by older kids? Isn't it well funded?"
I have no inside knowledge of this, but if a five year old's older sibling is participating, they might want to too? Does that make their testimony more or less valid? It shouldn't
This talk of "hiring" is just trolling, but since you brought it up. Montana is currently considering weakening its child labor protections, so there's that.
https://www.epi.org/publication/child-labor-laws-under-attac...