Why 18 and not 25?
There's a consistent factoid going around that brains aren't done developing until the age of 25. It's frequently used as an argument to restrict young people.
Looking at performance by age in fields like math and music, declining brain plasticity seems more like a reason to implement the carousel from Logan's Run
This is only because we arbitrarily picked an age - we used to consider people responsible for their own actions at much younger ages, it makes sense to change the number when we get new science supporting that. If the argument is that we shouldn't use brain development as a reason to restrict young people, then why not lower the drinking age again or get rid of it?
You can join the military and drive a tank into war at 18, but god forbid we let you have a beer afterward.
It seems like you're arguing that people shouldn't fully participate in society until they start losing their ability to learn. Have you met people who've lived overly sheltered lives until the age of 25? Their tolerance towards risk is low. Their ability to adapt to new experiences is busted. Forcing that on a society wide scale would be nuts.
The science does throw in a lot of complexity between the social ideas of freedom and the physical effects of alcohol. But have you met 18 year olds? They're drinking.
There's something to be said for waiting until people have actual life experience.
I know you're specifically referring to voting age, but just making a general observation on how everyone seems to only want to keep increasing these various arbitrary age gates as if simply being older is all it takes. Have you guys all forgotten when you went through these points?
I still distinctly remember how glaringly stupid I realized the world was when I had to take a waiver notice to my university dorm room and sign as my dad a few days before turning 18, and that just a few days later I'd be fine to sign it as myself, despite obviously not changing much in a few days. Either way I had been living at a university thousands of miles from my parents for nearly 2 years and had said as much, so it was a farce all around.
Similarly with turning 21 and being allowed to drink.
That you were not fully informed when you voted at 18 is not a reason to restrict the rights of others who are. Or aren't. Who's to say a 25yo is somehow any better prepared to vote? It's not like they were asked to pass a civics test first.
At what age does the child who can vote actually have the capacity to choose their candidate and are even able to negotiate the mechanics of voting? Let’s say 18 is too old, but how young before they are able to counter the influence of a parent and decide for themselves…I’d argue its at least well into their teens.
I guess my point boils down to simply: Why? There's arguments both ways, what's the reasoning?
The reason is loki's fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
For legal purposes we simply have to pick a line.
But regardless if the exact location of that line is arbitrary, it is still useful none the less.
There is no real issue with having an arbitrary line, if it is impractical to not have an arbitrary line, and useful none the less.
To give more obvious examples, we can take the drinking age, or the age of consent. Those line are arbitrary, but are still useful none the less.
If (as I assume) our goal is to restrict voting to those deemed mature and of sound mind, then I'd expect to see similar laws enforcing such restrictions in other sectors of the populace. But we don't see that! Instead we see laws explicitly granting the right to vote to the elderly and mentally disabled. It's possible to end up in a situation where an individual is deemed mentally unfit to manage their own finances or medical decisions, but still able to influence the governance of an entire nation.
I'm personally quite fascinated by this. Maybe my assumptions are wrong! Wouldn't that be neat? My goal is not to suggest that our policy is bad or wrong, it's to suggest that the "allegedly unethical scenario of having a voting age" is actually quite complex and interesting!
Dumb example: Should Brittney Spears have the right to vote?
Interesting example: Should felons?
It's about as logical as saying, "we put people in jail, therefore it's ok that you go to jail." The nuance and reasoning is the point.
We apply this argument in all kinds of cases that are super-uncontroversial so it’s surprising to hear that it makes someone uncomfortable in this particular case.
My conclusion: No. Children should not be able to do those things. Therefore, there are likely other things they should not be allowed to do.
I honestly can't believe we're even having this discussion.
The driving example is a bit disingenuous because, in the US at least, driving isn't conceptualized as a "right" - it's formulated as a privilege. The drinking example is closer, but that's the right to self-determination. I don't suspect that you believe children have zero self-determination, nor do I suspect that you believe that one person's right to vote should be based on everyone in a particular class.
It would be unconscionable to say, "Women shouldn't be allowed to vote because some women can't make good decisions." I simply extend the same unconscionablity to children.
I of course disagree with that statement, but it would imply that some women _can_ make good decisions.
To carry that back to the original argument, you are implying there are children out there who are capable of participating in political discourse.
I disagree.
It's starting to feel a bit like I'm feeding the trolls here, so I'll let this be my final reply. Have a good day.
While we're at it, why should adults be the ones deciding how the public school system works? It's been more than 10 years since I was in school, I doubt my experience is still relevant.
The drinking age in all 50 states is 21 thanks in most part to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_...
In Florida it was raised to 21 in 1986: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._history_of_alcohol_minimu...
In Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands it's still 18
In many jurisdictions you cannot do those things without adult supervision.
Perhaps we should also cut off people over 65, since they've proven to be more vulnerable to scams and financial exploitation over social media?
(there's real arguments to be had about the negative effects of social media, but a serious discussion would include those on adults and old people as well, and this ban, like the TikTok one, is definitely more a part of culture war than a well-intentioned effort to improve the effect of telecoms on people's lives)
In all seriousness, this is a great move that should be emulated. I'm a tech-optimist but the effect social media has on teenagers specifically and public discourse in general is absolutely toxic.
Leaning on existing laws isn't really the best for these things, because existing laws may be flawed. Would prefer to base it on scientific insights, but we don't have much relevant for this stuff.
So the real answer is "We don't know, and different states will try different ages and see what sticks, what people will accept."
In the US, under 18, only with parental consent.
A lot of states are removing restrictions for under 18 workers.
Also, drinking age is 21.