Age Of Consent - 13?

[DK]

However, since we're all living longer and we all need (supposedly) a college education, why don't we make completion of college the requirement of all? I see many talking about exams, education, etc. Incorporate everything into the education process. Sure we can all have sex at 15 illegally, drink at 16 illegally, and drive without a licence... nothing will change. At least there would be more of an incentive to stay in school.
1http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/

The thing is, just as you were wondering who would pay for the competency tests, who would pay for a third-level education?

If third-level education isn't provided by the state, then you're potentially excluding the poor from whatever activities require these licences acquired through third-level competency tests.

Even if third-level education is provided by the state for all, regardless of income, there are some who might want a job which doesn't require a third-level education, e.g. builder, cop, carpenter etc.

Personally, I'd be in favour of allowing alcohol, tobacco and cannabis consumption from 18. You can drive accompanied from 16, and you can also try to get a licence in order to drive unaccompanied from 16. Age of consent should be 15, but preferably when there is a detailed sex education course in school - which details the risks and various methods of contraception available.

 

[Keef]

Ok I've got a new requirement for voting instead of being 30 years old. You have to have paid money (net) in federal taxes to vote federally, and paid money in state to vote state. That means you paid more out than you got back in tax credits. No social security does not count, nor any other specific entitlement programs like unemployment.

I wouldn't be included. Most of the new generation libertarian-leaning young people wouldn't be included, either. However, most baby boomers would be included and they're the ones who've managed to get us where we are over the past 30-50 years.

Alternatively, if I'm not allowed to vote on who governs me then I'll politely ask to be excluded from the governed.

The issue of voting is not one of age limits or "competency". It's a matter of education. You can imagine how easy it is to come up with a "conspiracy" theory about how most education is administered by the government and therefore it's reasonable to suggest that the curriculum is geared toward indoctrination of serving governmental interests. So how about we come up with an education system which is at least mostly privatized .

 

[Danoff]

I know what the consequences of sex are. Most folks in here should be.

You didn't seem to be. You said this:

Think of it this way; if you can consent to sex, you should be able to be responsible for the consequences. Does that mean that a 12-15 year old (under most of the ideas) can have a child but can't get a job (think school, can't drive, can't vote, etc). They can't pay for said child, then you end up needing a socialist or welfare environment so the baby doesn't suffer.

This indicates that you think that providing for the child is a consequence of sex. I showed how it is an option, but not the only option. You can see why I felt the need to explain it.

What is the age that someone can make a decision to terminate(if it's even legal)

Any age. Human rights require that any person be allowed to abort.

why did you eliminate welfare?

Huh? I said paying for the child is not required because of abortion and adoption. Welfare doesn't play into the discussion.

Are you requiring proof of income for having a child?

I have no idea what I wrote that could make you think that.

What if they can't pay for it, legitimately?

Then they can't take the competency test and can't pass it. This is akin to asking what if you can't pay for your driver's license in the US. Answer is you don't get one.

Ever heard of FUTA? Maybe it's time to research how unemployment works. If you need additional help, PM me and I'll find some literature to help. (I don't mean this sarcastically)

I think I understand it perfectly. Insurance is a voluntary system. Nobody forces you to pay in. Entitlement programs are non-voluntary systems - you are required to pay in. Unemployment is an entitlement program, not insurance.

No land=No vote, No pay taxes=No vote.

No land = No vote. Under 18 = No vote. It's parallel to discrimination.

See how that works? I can do it with anything:

No land = No vote. No pulse = No vote. It's parallel to discrimination.
No land = No vote, No human DNA = No vote. It's parallel to discrimination.

Ok so you'll have to explain to me in a way that actually holds water why those two are parallel, because I don't see it.

So the 18 year old who is finishing high school has no right to responsibly determine who their representation will be? What if they're going to have a job and be responsible--- they still don't have a say until they "pay in"?

Correct.

Let's go to another example. Mom (or dad) of 4, who can afford to be a stay at home mom (or dad) because the spouse has a great job. By your definition they have no rights.

Woah. No. By my definition they may not be allowed to vote - they still have rights. However if they filed jointly with their spouse, they would be allowed to vote.

Or if you're extending it to adults in a tax paying household, can we include state but not federally recognized marriages?

State and federal have no business disagreeing on marriage contracts.

I wouldn't be included. Most of the new generation libertarian-leaning young people wouldn't be included, either. However, most baby boomers would be included and they're the ones who've managed to get us where we are over the past 30-50 years.

The big change would be retirees, politically it would lean in the direction you want. What's the single largest payout group from the federal government - retirees. Who are the largest entitlement programs for - retirees. Who is bankrupting this country - retirees. Who don't pay taxes - retirees.

Alternatively, if I'm not allowed to vote on who governs me then I'll politely ask to be excluded from the governed.

Naturally the function of government is to protect human rights - so unfortunately no, you cannot be excluded from observing human rights.

 

[Keef]

Naturally the function of government is to protect human rights - so unfortunately no, you cannot be excluded from observing human rights.

That is the logical function of government. Time has proven that humans only act logically long enough to establish a fair society, not necessarily maintain it thereafter. Nor does government have anything to do with an individual observing rights other than to provide an incentive to and a justice system for when that fails.

I was referring especially to the vast majority of laws which have nothing to do with protecting human rights, specifically those with catastrophic penalties. Any person eligible to be tried under the full extent of the law should have a say in how those laws are established. That means all legal adults competent enough.

 

[Danoff]

That is the logical function of government. Time has proven that humans only act logically long enough to establish a fair society, not necessarily maintain it thereafter. Nor does government have anything to do with an individual observing rights other than to provide an incentive to and a justice system for when that fails.

I was referring especially to the vast majority of laws which have nothing to do with protecting human rights, specifically those with catastrophic penalties. Any person eligible to be tried under the full extent of the law should have a say in how those laws are established. That means all legal adults competent enough.

Well you don't have to abide by those laws anyway. That's not to say you won't be prosecuted, but morally those laws don't bind you.

 

[Jubby]

We taught the little Johnette about the birds and the bees very early in life so she was well aware at a young age, where everything went and what it did and what could happen.

But when she was 12, her Mom and I pretty much knew where she was at all times of the day and night. When she had a sleepover, we knew the parents and who was going to be there. She wasn't allowed to hang out in the mall or wander the streets aimlessly. The most likely way for a 36 year old to have enough time to develop a relationship with her would have been another parent. I would have been insane if that had happened and probably went to jail, at least overnight...lol, but I still don't think I'd want him to go to prison for it if she consented to it. I'd consider it a mistake in judgment on her part and something I messed up on as a parent.

You represent the good cross section of parents who actually teach and are active in this process. It's the children who didn't get the proper guidance and oversight that I'm worried about in a situation like this.

The thing is, just as you were wondering who would pay for the competency tests, who would pay for a third-level education?

If third-level education isn't provided by the state, then you're potentially excluding the poor from whatever activities require these licences acquired through third-level competency tests.

Even if third-level education is provided by the state for all, regardless of income, there are some who might want a job which doesn't require a third-level education, e.g. builder, cop, carpenter etc.

Good point. Since it benefits society as a whole and each individual, it should be part of the taxation process. We already pay for primary and secondary education. Some places already pay for post-secondary education and in-state public colleges tend to be very inexpensive. I know it won't be cheap, but at least it'll be all inclusive and increase the graduation rates- too many incentives to go, too big of a consequence not to. Also, most police officers would benefit (and most already do) by trade schools for criminal justice. Carpenters and the like can go to technical colleges for those trades, it just can focus on their trade and what needs to be accomplished on the whole for competencies- if that's what we go for to obtain the privileges we want.

This indicates that you think that providing for the child is a consequence of sex. I showed how it is an option, but not the only option. You can see why I felt the need to explain it.

I do. What I was trying to bring to light is the current social issue that if someone underage or without a job has a child, the child would be cared for through social services including welfare. If all we're doing is changing when someone can consent and/or setting parameters to have a child, we can legitimately see an increase in these situations. Maybe now you can see why I stated what I did.

I think I understand it perfectly. Insurance is a voluntary system. Nobody forces you to pay in. Entitlement programs are non-voluntary systems - you are required to pay in. Unemployment is an entitlement program, not insurance.

No you don't. Check out this document. Unemployment Compensation Here's a basic overview.
"An employer is subject to the federal unemployment tax if, during the current or preceding calendar year, he/she employed one or more individuals in each of at least 20 calendar weeks, or if he/she paid wages of $1,500 or more during any calendar quarter of either such year."

No land = No vote. Under 18 = No vote. It's parallel to discrimination.

See how that works? I can do it with anything:

No land = No vote. No pulse = No vote. It's parallel to discrimination.
No land = No vote, No human DNA = No vote. It's parallel to discrimination.

Ok so you'll have to explain to me in a way that actually holds water why those two are parallel, because I don't see it.

We just won't see eye to eye on this. I'd rather not run around in circles with you. I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this, as we'd take all week working on this.

Woah. No. By my definition they may not be allowed to vote - they still have rights. However if they filed jointly with their spouse, they would be allowed to vote.

A dependent clause? Okay sounds good. How about children of any age as they would be dependents too.

 

[Danoff]

I do. What I was trying to bring to light is the current social issue that if someone underage or without a job has a child, the child would be cared for through social services including welfare. If all we're doing is changing when someone can consent and/or setting parameters to have a child, we can legitimately see an increase in these situations. Maybe now you can see why I stated what I did.

I do. But people who need the state to help them take care of their children should have their children taken away and enrolled in foster care or adopted by people who can and are willing to provide for them.

No you don't. Check out this document. Unemployment Compensation Here's a basic overview.
"An employer is subject to the federal unemployment tax if, during the current or preceding calendar year, he/she employed one or more individuals in each of at least 20 calendar weeks, or if he/she paid wages of $1,500 or more during any calendar quarter of either such year."

...exactly as I said. Entitlement program - non voluntary.

A dependent clause? Okay sounds good. How about children of any age as they would be dependents too.

No dependents do not get voting rights. Filing jointly is not the same thing.

 

[Jubby]

No dependents do not get voting rights. Filing jointly is not the same thing.

How so? If the spouse does not earn any income, then they are not paying any taxes and would qualify as a dependent. I don't see your distinction, please elaborate.

 

[BobK]

You've never filled out a 1040, I take it.

 

[Jubby]

You've never filled out a 1040, I take it.

Did I state that in terms of a 1040? I actually have-many- and I pay in, if that's in question too. Danoff is proposing that in order to vote, a person needs to pay "in" income taxes. I'm asking him fundamentally, to elaborate how he's extending the voting right just because of a joint filing. The spouse simply counts as a dependent and increases the tax burden (at less than a 1:1 rate) under the tax code for purposes of filing, but that's the only input they have on a 1040, and I'm trying to find his "fine line". Is it simply because of marriage? Is it because he's operating under the assumption that 'what's his is hers and what's hers is his'? Or is he going strictly with the tax code? I'm curious to find out who he includes under common circumstances.

If you have an answer for Danoff and his idea, great. Otherwise, where would you draw the line?

 

[Danoff]

Did I state that in terms of a 1040? I actually have-many- and I pay in, if that's in question too. Danoff is proposing that in order to vote, a person needs to pay "in" income taxes. I'm asking him fundamentally, to elaborate how he's extending the voting right just because of a joint filing. The spouse simply counts as a dependent and increases the tax burden (at less than a 1:1 rate) under the tax code for purposes of filing, but that's the only input they have on a 1040, and I'm trying to find his "fine line".

Uh no.

The spouse does not count as a dependent, and filing jointly decreases the tax burden under the tax code. Filing jointly philosophically is both members of a marriage claiming ownership over the tax liability and income for a given year. As a result, both parties would get the opportunity to vote.

 

[GTsail]

Ok I've got a new requirement for voting instead of being 30 years old. You have to have paid money (net) in federal taxes to vote federally, and paid money in state to vote state. That means you paid more out than you got back in tax credits. No social security does not count, nor any other specific entitlement programs like unemployment.

That requirement would disenfranchise approximately 48% of all US voters (so probably many of the US members reading this thread). And no, you should not be voting if you're not funding the government.

Doesn't this proposal essentially institute a poll tax?

Didn't the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution eliminate poll taxes?

Wouldn't a society end up with two classes of citizens if only the wealthy citizens can vote?

1) the tax-payers (the rich aristocracy & the middle class)
2) the poor (think huddled masses)

What about the following situation:

Lets say that the wealthy citizens (the voters) mostly live on the north-side of town
Lets say that the poor people (non-voting) live on the south-side of town

Over time, for various reasons, the drinking water system in a large city (think Denver or some other large city) becomes polluted and begins to make everyone sick (rich and poor alike).

The city's waterboard conducts a study and comes up with two solutions:

1) spend $20 million on a large filtration system, and provide clean water to the entire city
2) spend $10 million on a small filtration system, and provide clean water to only the houses on the north-side of town (nearly all net-tax paying citizens live in gated communties, which are all clustered together on the north-side of town).

The city holds a vote.

Since only the wealthly residents can vote, the voters mostly vote in their self-interest, and the result is that the voters want to only spend $10 million, and only want to provide clean water to the houses in the gated communties on the north-side of town.

When questioned afterwards, many voters say the same thing: "Well, we pay the taxes..... we get the clean water."

Could the non-voting poor get any redress from the city/state?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

How about we institute a flat tax in response so that everyone can vote?

 

[Keef]

How about we institute a flat tax in response so that everyone can vote?

How about a flat consumption tax so it isn't necessarily mandatory.

 

[Jubby]

The spouse does not count as a dependent, and filing jointly decreases the tax burden under the tax code. Filing jointly philosophically is both members of a marriage claiming ownership over the tax liability and income for a given year. As a result, both parties would get the opportunity to vote.

You're right, I totally contradicted what I stated, but that's what I meant (decreasing). Technically the spouse does count as a dependent- that's why if you're married with no children your 1040 form line 6 includes yourself and your spouse when filing jointly- but that's not your point, is it? I understand what you're saying. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[BobK]

Actually, since a couple filing jointly counts as one entity for tax purposes, it could be argued that they count as a single entity for voting purposes as well, if one wants to link voting and taxation.

 

[Danoff]

How about a flat consumption tax so it isn't necessarily mandatory.

Even better.

But if we did that my whole system of determining who can vote would be broken. I'd have to come up with something else. I suppose you want me to do that now huh?

 

[SVX]

Okay, this is my first post in this section, please bear with me, or even not read this post at all (most advised action).

Putting the age of consent to 13 is an absolutely terrible idea IMO. If you give kids/teenagers that level of responsibility so early on (considering they've only just started puberty), it would be a very improper thing to do.

How would they be able to decide a life changing decision when people from the same age group still thinks 'Yo Mama' jokes are the most hilarious thing ever?

Myself included.

 

[Jubby]

How would they be able to decide a life changing decision when people from the same age group still thinks 'Yo Mama' jokes are the most hilarious thing ever?

I think this is what needs to change, not the age of consent. However, that change cannot realistically be legislated. 13, 14, and 15 year old teens want to be treated like adults but they act like this in serious situations.

 

[Joel]

Putting the age of consent to 13 is an absolutely terrible idea IMO. If you give kids/teenagers that level of responsibility so early on (considering they've only just started puberty), it would be a very improper thing to do.

As Johnny said, it was 14 in Canada until recently. Nobody even knew until they changed it to 16, it just wasn't an issue. I really think the issues with a younger age of consent are overblown. It's not like Canada was a land of debauchery before the all knowing government changed a law that existed for over 100 years.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Okay, this is my first post in this section, please bear with me, or even not read this post at all (most advised action).

Putting the age of consent to 13 is an absolutely terrible idea IMO. If you give kids/teenagers that level of responsibility so early on (considering they've only just started puberty), it would be a very improper thing to do.

How would they be able to decide a life changing decision when people from the same age group still thinks 'Yo Mama' jokes are the most hilarious thing ever?

Myself included.

Kids will have sex at whatever age they decide to have sex given their upbringing, personality, self esteem etc. The Age of Consent laws only change at what age their partner is called a "boyfriend/girlfriend" and at what age he/she is called a "felon".

 

[SVX]

People are agreeing with me? What is this?!

As Johnny said, it was 14 in Canada until recently. Nobody even knew until they changed it to 16, it just wasn't an issue. I really think the issues with a younger age of consent are overblown. It's not like Canada was a land of debauchery before the all knowing government changed a law that existed for over 100 years.

Wow, I had no idea.

I still think 13/14 is way too young, considering most of the 13/14 year olds have just been taught about what to do, etc. (At least in NZ is is).

Kids will have sex at whatever age they decide to have sex given their upbringing, personality, self esteem etc. The Age of Consent laws only change at what age their partner is called a "boyfriend/girlfriend" and at what age he/she is called a "felon".

That's a good point actually. Nothing actually is stopping them, until the police/parents (if they're against it) find out.

 

[Famine]

considering most of the 13/14 year olds have just been taught about what to do, etc. (At least in NZ is is).

And there's the problem. Not when kids are having sex, but when they're learning about it.

And what.

And from whom.

WHO teaches YOUR kids about sex? Don't worry, here comes the government to make it a mandated course in public schools, so you can leave it to "some teacher" that you'll not bother remembering the first name of at any point.

Do you not think it's... kinda YOUR job, as a parent, to teach YOUR kids about it? It's not like it's a specialist subject only teachers can cover. In fact it's something you have direct practical experience of from trying to get the kid in the first place...

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

And there's the problem. Not when kids are having sex, but when they're learning about it.

And what.

And from whom.

WHO teaches YOUR kids about sex? Don't worry, here comes the government to make it a mandated course in public schools, so you can leave it to "some teacher" that you'll not bother remembering the first name of at any point.

Do you not think it's... kinda YOUR job, as a parent, to teach YOUR kids about it? It's not like it's a specialist subject only teachers can cover. In fact it's something you have direct practical experience of from trying to get the kid in the first place...

But...but...think about the awkwardness!

How dare you suggest that parents actually parent their children. Who has time for that these days?

Nope, better leave it to the government. Cause that's what it's there for you know, to be a surrogate parent because the actual parents can't be bothered...

 

[Joel]

I still think 13/14 is way too young, considering most of the 13/14 year olds have just been taught about what to do, etc. (At least in NZ is is).

Canadian schools don't have very good sex ed programs (curriculum hasn't been updated in ~15 years) but as I said, it's not like we had 100 years of 14 year old girls getting pregnant en masse that was suddenly fixed when the nanny state stepped in and changed the law.

Also, Famine was spot on. I don't really understand why sex ed defaults to the all knowing government rather than parents.

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...aints-parents-fear-promote-homosexuality.html

This is just one reason you can't leave sex-ed to the school. Be a cold day in H-E-double hockey sticks before I sent my son to school in a dress!!

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

It's a voluntary day, so you wouldn't have to send your son to school in a dress.

Nothing wrong with guys wearing dresses for fun, I did so for fancy dress and theatre productions many a time, and I'm as straight as they come.

 

[Exorcet]

A dress is no more suited for women than men. It might actually be a good idea so that people stop associating arbitrary items with sex. Dresses weren't for girls until people invented them and said so. Then they gave the guys skirts and called them kilts.

 

[Johnnypenso]

It's a voluntary day, so you wouldn't have to send your son to school in a dress.

Nothing wrong with guys wearing dresses for fun, I did so for fancy dress and theatre productions many a time, and I'm as straight as they come.

Lol...if my son grew up and wanted to wear a skirt there's nothing I can do about that..when he's 7...not a chance