What Should Be the Age of Adulthood? Part 1

Nearing the 10^th anniversary of the arrest of the twin daughters of then president George W. Bush Jennifer and Barbara Bush for underage drinking in Texas on April 29, 2001, I want to explain my feelings about laws that restrict freedom based on your birthdate alone. It’s hard to determine a fixed age of adulthood without basing it on a single birthdate alone. This could be impossible for some people to prove who don’t even have a clear birth certificate or ID. Keep in mind that these chronological age based laws not only affect those underage, but those who look underage in terms of having to show ID to purchase alcoholic beverages possibly until you look old and somewhat grey, can affect for example people who provide alcohol and/or guns to those considered by law “underage” regardless of the provider’s age, the parents or caregivers are also affected because they could be forced to be responsible for their youth’s behavior regardless of the youth’s state of competence and ageist laws against youth can make it more difficult and even impossible to teach their kin about responsible habits such as handling alcohol and weapons responsibly. With attempts at a highly sophisticated big-brother style national ID system it would be even more difficult to buy alcohol unless you looked old which could not happen until you’re possibly near 30 or even 50 years old. Thanks to state nullification of Real ID throughout the past few years, Real ID is considered De Facto null and void. How do we determine who is an adult without basing the fact on an arbitrary age?

            The age of majority in almost every state in the United States is 18 with exceptions being alcohol, handgun purchases, sometimes gambling, etc. at 21. Believe it or not, there used to be times in America’s history where most of aged based laws restricting liberty and justice were non-existent and even unheard of. There were very few laws restricting youth under 18 during the American Revolution of the 1770’s and 1780’s with one notable exception being the voting age of 21. Before the mid 19^th century, prohibition anyway in the United States of America was non-existent. A handful of states by 1855 including Maine banned the entire sale of alcoholic liquors. The only state to have a drinking age before the ratification of the 18^th amendment in 1919 was Wisconsin which set its drinking age at 18 for most alcoholic beverages in 1839 and 21 for all alcoholic beverages in 1866. Drinking ages are scars of prohibition that were not repealed in 1933 although left to the states. In fact, Americans drank 1.7 bottles of hard liquor per week on average in 1830, three times the average in 2010. "Drunkenness was condemned and punished, but only as an abuse of a God-given gift. Drink itself was not looked upon as culpable, any more than food deserved blame for the sin of gluttony. Excess was a personal indiscretion." There’s no doubt to my mind that alcohol abuse needs to be condemned harshly. Constitutional rights apply to all persons regardless of race, gender, creed, nationality, age, etc. and the drinking age is just like prohibition only applying to those under their 21^st birthdays. In 1967, the US Supreme Court ruled that due process and natural rights could not be infringed because of youth or old age (In Re Gault). Two years later in 1969, the US Supreme Court ruled that free speech may not be infringed for age based reasons and cannot be unreasonably infringed inside the school gates (Tinker v. Des Moines School District). I do acknowledge that schools have a duty to protect the youth inside the schools; however schools should not be enclaves of totalitarianism and should not be involved in student and teachers private lives. The next year in 1970, the US Supreme Court would rule in favor of youth rights for the third and possibly final time that no matter the age of defendant whether in juvenile or adult court that the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases (In Re Winship).

            In 2008 DC v. Heller and 2010 McDonald v. Chicago the US Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, the right to keep and bear arms is still not kept to the same protection standards as for example the 1^st and 4^th amendments protecting free speech and bans on unreasonable search and seizure. The right to keep and bear arms is still infringed on draconically and the example I will talk about in this blog is the restrictions based on age. The infamous and evil Gun Control Act of 1968 created a broad range of gun control laws and regulations on the gun manufacturing industry and created a list of prohibited purchasers. The age to purchase a rifle or shotgun from a Federal Firearms Licensee is 18 and for handguns and semi-automatics and items on the National Firearms Act of 1934 the age is 21. In 1791, there were very few gun control laws at the state level and no gun control laws at the federal level, though bans on concealed carry probably existed but our founding fathers would oppose these bans because of the need to protect ourselves outside of our own homes. The right to keep and bear arms is not only for sportsman and hunters and even for self-defense but a safeguard against tyranny and ageist youth crushing laws are tyranny! Ageist politicians don’t want youth to have guns because it would be a threat to their power and the power of tyrannical government forces who’s activities are more than equivalent than activities of the mafia and street gangs nearly combined. Difference between government and organized crime is that government is the legal version of organized crime. Youth are already vulnerable due to the fact they have no means of self-protection on our streets in a legal sense and the criminals regardless of the law. Carrying weapons assures us that we can feel safe by arming ourselves and fending off criminals and tyrants who try to harm us.

            Other laws that are bad policy include laws against running away from home and moving out on your own will because such a law deprives you of liberty and liberty is freedom from being under legal custody, curfews violate the right to travel, child labor laws infringe on your ability to make a decent living and achieve financial freedom and independence, compulsory education laws only slow down progress and waste time and 1^st amendment rights to believe what you want.

  “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”-Thomas Jefferson

“No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” –Thomas Jefferson

It is better to tolerate that rare instance of a parent’s refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings by a forcible transportation and education of the infant against the will of his father. – Thomas Jefferson

            Government exists to protect and enforce the rights and contracts of the people. No rights are protected or enforced when someone else’s rights are infringed. Punishing someone for certain activity for the reasons of “protecting” them from harm not only fails to protect but also victimizes them to being arrested, fined, jailed and branded with a criminal record. Nobody is a hero when they are the aggressors regardless of whatever reason it may be. Being aggressive is never the answer to individual and social and economic problems. I realize what people may think about what I believe about why there should be no age of majority. It is arbitrary and unreasonable to discriminate someone based on their date of birth and I also believe that the 14^th amendment prohibits such discrimination under the equal protection clause. Youth are not livestock and property and no human being is. Responsibility comes with rights and for those judged incompetent to make their own decisions and know right from wrong then the parents and/or caregivers are the ones responsible for their judged incompetents in their care. America’s had a history of trying people as young as 12 as adults for serious crimes so let’s stop treating youth like children yet punishing them like adults. Freedom is a birthright and not a reward that you must earn and with aged based laws you have to attain an arbitrary age in order to exercise certain inalienable rights. America’s supposed to be the freest country on earth. I’ll write some more on this matter in another blog later on this week.