The following is a list of frequently asked questions about ASFAR and the answers.
It is also recommended that you read the ASFAR Declaration of Principles.

General Questions

Q: What is ASFAR?

A: ASFAR (Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions) is an organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the legal civil rights of youth through the abolition of age-based restrictions. ASFAR fights the voting age, curfew laws, and other laws that limit the freedom of young people. ASFAR is incorporated as a non-profit organization in the state of Missouri.

Q: Who founded ASFAR? What's its history?

A: ASFAR was founded in 1996 by University of Maryland student Matt Walcoff.

It all started when Matt put together a declaration that he planned to have signed by individuals dedicated to the youth rights cause. The founding members ratified the Declaration of Principles and the Constitution (the organization bylaws) on August 31, 1996.

Matt decided not to run in the 1997-98 election of officers, and is no longer associated with ASFAR.

Q: Is ASFAR strictly a web-based association?

A: No! Although ASFAR started out strictly over the web, we are currently in the process of expanding our operations through the formation and activities of local chapters across the US.

Q: How many members does ASFAR have?

A: As of July 1, 2003, over 1200 people have joined ASFAR: youth, parents, and other interested individuals.

Q: Does ASFAR have any particular political bias or endorse any political parties?

A: No. ASFAR's membership spans the entire political and philosophical spectrum: conservatives, liberals, libertarians, and more. We are united by a shared opposition to the arbitrary nature of age-based restrictions.

Q: Can I support ASFAR with a financial contribution, or is the only way I can help through membership?

A: ASFAR has been incorporated and can legally accept donations.

Q: I'm writing an essay for school about youth rights and/or a specific age restriction. Can ASFAR provide information to help me?

A: We're working on making ASFAR position papers available for you on our web site, and already have a few here. In the mean time, ASFAR can help you by providing facts, figures, and arguments against specific age restrictions for reference purposes. Also make sure to look around our site and visit our links section. You'll find that much information is already there.

If you still need help, you can e-mail us.

Philosophical Questions

Q: Why does ASFAR want to eliminate age restrictions?

ASFAR believes age-based restrictions violate the tenet of equality before the law that is so central to our free, democratic society. We believe that the abolition of age restrictions would lead to greater liberty and freedom for young people.

Q: The idea of abolishing age restrictions sounds pretty radical!

A: If you think about it, it's based on the very same concept that already guides our laws: equality before the law. We only want it to be equally applied to all Americans, as the Constitution says it should be.

Q: So what makes your group different from other children's rights groups?

A: The difference between ASFAR members and the typical youth advocate is THAT the latter focuses on protecting children, keeping them safe, and ensuring that they are provided with "entitlements", such as the "right" to education, even at the expense of the civil liberties that are guaranteed to adults. While we are also concerned with the well-being of young people, we believe that depriving individuals of basic human rights -- freedom of speech, suffrage, privacy, autonomy -- does not serve their best interests.

Q: Aren't age restrictions there to protect young people and make sure that immature young people can't do certain things? And do you really think you can change these laws?

A: There is no "protection" an age restriction provides that cannot be provided in a non-age based way. Arguments of the "necessity" of these restrictions, and the "inability" of young people to handle greater freedom, often mirror the arguments made in opposition to woman's suffrage and minority civil rights. As to the question of the probability of success, we do indeed recognize that it will take a long time to change these laws. But that did not stop the Abolitionists from campaigning against slavery, because they were driven by the knowledge that they were in the moral right. And ultimately, they were successful in a relatively short amount of time.

Q: So you think ALL young people should be able vote?  Won't immature young people voting cause the Death of the Republic?

A: ASFAR believes that if there is going to be a criterion limiting who can vote, it should not be based on age, and supports efforts to lower the voting age as steps in the right direction. Given that people of younger and younger ages are getting interested in politics, and that about 50% of people over 18 who have the right to vote don't make use of it, we see such a policy as monumentally unfair, and contrary to the principles of a democratic society. Alternatives to the voting age could include some kind of voting test, a requirement of legal emancipation, or voting rights upon employment, among others. Some ASFAR members also do indeed support the concept of absolutely universal suffrage!

With regard to the supposed "immaturity" of young people: some studies have found that teenagers have identical abilities and patterns of reasoning as people who are much older.  But even such a favorable finding is itself an unfair generalization, for not all people "mature" at the same rate.  It is wrong to make a blanket statement about a group of people who have nothing more in common than a date of birth.  Plenty of people past the "age of majority" have far less maturity, knowledge, common sense, or life experience than the "typical" teenager.  Conversely, there are young people in our own organization who are entrepreneurs, scholars, computer technicians.  People of all ages need and are entitled to a voice in our society, and society needs the benefit of their input.

Also see our Voting position paper.

Q: If there were a proposal for a test only those under the age of 18 would take, to be able to vote, would you support such a measure?

A: Yes, as a step in the right direction. The fact is that, as of right now, those under 18 cannot vote under ANY circumstances. So while far from ideal, such a proposal would be something ASFAR would support as a positive step.

Q: Do you think young people should be able to access any kind of materials, including pornography?

A: ASFAR believes that there should be no government restrictions on the kind of materials young people can access, assuming that the materials are legal for adults to view. The current state of freedom of speech for young people is teetering on the edge of an Orwellian cliff. Increasingly, Congress passes laws that restrict the freedom of speech and expression of young people without regard to their Constitutionality. We are heading towards a society where young people will only be able to hear whatever the "majority" viewpoint that has been deemed "not harmful" by government censors is, crushing healthy intellectual debate and stifling the democratic process. And the justification for this? The inherent evil of nudie pictures! That is not to say that parents cannot limit what is viewed in their own home. But this is the prerogative of the parent, not the government.

Also see our Free Speech position paper.

Q: Does ASFAR want to abolish any distinction between children and adults? Won't that put children at risk? And how would ASFAR propose the transition between minor status and adulthood occur in an ASFAR society?

A: ASFAR opposes government-imposed age-based distinctions between young people and adults. That is not to say that there can be no distinction on any basis, but such a distinction should be based on the capacities of the individual, and not the number of days they've been on this earth. A fair and objective system of law would ensure that young people not yet able to handle the responsibilities of adulthood would not have those responsibilities thrust upon them, while allowing those especially mature young people the right to run their own lives. As to the transition between childhood and adult status in an ASFAR world, there are again many possibilities. Young people seeking emancipation (and adulthood) could apply for it to a branch of the courts, where it would be reviewed on the merits of their ability to support themselves as opposed to their age. Alternatively, they could simply declare their intention to become adults, and seek out the means by which to support themselves, such as a job; perhaps there would a period of time afterwards where if they failed, they could "revert" back to childhood status, in case the decision was made in the heat of the moment and not on a careful analysis of the facts. There are other possibilities as well, and ASFAR is currently working on a detailed analysis of this issue.

Q: Does ASFAR really believe that all physical punishment of young people should be outlawed?

A: Yes. Why is it that an act which would be considered assault if done to any stranger on the street, and spousal abuse if done to one's spouse, is considered "tough love" when done to one's own child? There is no excuse for the continued acceptance of this barbaric practice. Now it should be noted that ASFAR favors appropriate punishment based on the severity of the act--obviously a parent should not be thrown in jail for spanking a child lightly. But we should discourage such acts.

Q: What about parental rights?

A: Parents have the obligation to protect children not yet able to make decisions on their own, and from this obligation come various special classes of rights we do not recognize in other relationships. While as mentioned above ASFAR does NOT recognize physical punishment as a "parental right", certainly parents have the right to make children not yet able to make their own decisions do various things, such as get their vaccination shots and the like. And while ASFAR opposes, for example, government restrictions on what young people may see on television, opposition to such restrictions does not imply a duty upon parents to provide television sets for their children.  If a child seeks to exercise that right, they should be able to seek emancipation and/or work and gain the means by which to purchase a television for themselves.  But the parent has no duty to do so.

Q: If compulsory education is abolished, won't children stop going to school?

A: Our very concept of education is changing rapidly.  With the proliferation of educational alternatives such as homeschooling and online classes, the concept of public schools may seem increasingly less appealing as time goes by.

It seems doubtful that there would be a sudden lack of students going to school in the short term if compulsory education were abolished.  There's no reason to think that the number of students not going to school would be higher than the current drop-out rate.  But perhaps it's time we faced the fact that 12 years of education is simply not good for everyone.  With so many 13- and 14-year-olds already possessing the necessary skills to start their own businesses or do computer work for companies, perhaps our traditional way of looking at education and the number of years "necessary" should be re-evaluated.  The current method of public mass schooling was designed to create a homogenized work force suitable for the factory line production models prevalent in the early 1900s.  With today's radically new economic realities, it's no wonder so many people are seeking alternatives to traditional education; we should let them, instead of being held back by our unrealistic fears.

Many of the students who WOULD drop out and not seek to advance their lives through any other means may also be disruptive or violence-prone, forced to be in the proximity of students who actually want to better their lives, taking up valuable resources that could actually benefit young people who were motivated to be there.  So why not let them out?

Also, see our Education position paper.

Q: Don't uniforms help reduce conflict by making everyone "the same"?

A: That's a bad goal to begin with.  The purpose of education should be to prepare the students for life as responsible INDIVIDUALS, pursuing their individual passions, desires and dreams.  How does the goal of making everyone "the same" make sense in that context?

Furthermore, uniforms do not even achieve their misguided goal.  You cannot make everyone the same.  Some people will still be prettier, richer, smarter, and more  popular, and everyone will know who's who, even if you make them wear dress pants or skirts.

If you really want to reduce conflict, let students pursue their own interests within OR outside the school environment, instead of forcing a set curriculum on everyone.  And let those who think they can better spend their time elsewhere do so.

Q: Does ASFAR really believe that "As long as laws prohibiting discrimination by businesses on a basis other than age exist, local governments should protect from discrimination by businesses on the basis of age. "?

A: The question of whether the government should force businesses to abide by  anti-discrimination laws is open to debate.  But as long as the government takes it upon itself to protect certain classes of customers, and requires businesses to deal with them on an equal basis, it should provide the same protection for young people.

Q: Won't young people abuse credit cards and bank loans?

A:  Companies that issue credit cards and loans have every incentive to make sure that they are offered only to people who can responsibly use these services. In the absence of arbitrary age restrictions, they would surely take the same care in approving credit for young people as they do for adults.

Q: Won't repealing child-labor laws cause a reappearence of child sweatshops and forced labor?

A: Laws are now in place which protect all workers from the inhumane and dangerous conditions that existed in the sweatshops and factories of the past.  If those laws were made to apply equally to all ages, they should serve to protect children as well.  Naturally, informed consent to work actitivity on the part of the youth would be required, as it is for adults, and any parent forcing their child to work should have appropriate legal action taken against them.

Q: Can you explain this idea of informed consent and how it is different from uninformed consent?

A: Informed consent occurs when a person with a sufficiently developed rational faculty consents to something with knowledge of the action and its implications. Uninformed consent occurs when a person with an insufficiently developed rational faculty consents to something without a firm grasp of the action and its implications. Rather like the legal concept "beyond a reasonable doubt", there is somewhat of a gray area here open to interpretation. However, many people approximate beyond a reasonable doubt as 99% certain, and likewise informed consent can be approximated as a level of intelligence and maturity sufficient to consent to something with a firm grasp of the issue at hand. Its worth noting that this difference is rather like the concept of "diminished mental capacity" that is used to prosecute those who take advantage of senile and mentally retarded individuals.

Q: Does ASFAR really think those under the age of 18 should be able to get contraceptives without parental permission?

A: Yes. Young woman have a fundamental right of self-ownership over their bodies, and should be able to take steps to ensure that they do not get pregnant, if they choose.

Q: What about abortion?

A: ASFAR takes no official stance on abortion, except to say that medical procedures available to adults should also be available to young people with no greater restrictions or requirements than exist for adults.

Q: What does ASFAR think about handing out condoms in schools?

A: ASFAR takes no official position on that issue.

Q: Won't repealing the age of consent lead to a lot more young people being raped? And why repeal it anyways?

A: ASFAR favors replacement of the current age of consent with a standard of informed consent as outlined earlier. Individuals who engage in sexual activities with people without their informed consent would be considered rapists, and punished appropriately. Age of Consent laws, like any other arbitrary age-based law, judge whole lots of individuals based on nothing more than the number of days they have spent on the earth. AOC laws in particular cause especially ludicrous situations, like an 18-year old year old being accused of "raping" a consenting partner who's a few days shy of 18. While it's true that juries are often lenient in such situations, it would be best to avoid the harassment of young people altogether. ASFAR advocates replacing this antiquated approach with a system based on objective law and an understanding of informed consent as we've outlined. And with application of the law in the hands of juries, on a case-by-case basis, we believe this system will be even more effective in punishing rapists, while also protecting the rights of those young people who ARE mature enough to consent to do so.

Q: Won't eliminating the driving age cause the traffic accident rate to soar? Do you think 5-year olds should be able to drive?

A: Not necessarily. Unlike several other issues where its much more complex to come up with an objective system of determining who should get a particular right, the driving question is very simple. If you can pass the license test, you should be able to drive. And if our hypothetical 5-year old could get their license, they should not be restricted from driving. And if a huge bunch of 5-year olds unable to drive competently were somehow able to get their licenses and thereby caused the accident rate to go up, that would certainly say something about the validity of the licensing test :-)

Q: What's wrong with curfew laws? Don't they help reduce crime?

A: Curfew laws are a blatant violation of the Constitutional right to freedom of assembly. As for "curtailing" crime, their ability to do so is dubious at best, and the reported "link" between falling crime rates and the institution of curfews occurred at a time in which the entire COUNTRY was experiencing a lowering crime rate, including municipalities that do not have a youth curfew (like New York City). And finally, even if they WERE effective in reducing crime, that does not justify such an egregious violating of basic rights. Adults hypocritically proclaiming the virtues of youth curfews would not be likely to argue that those same curfews be applied to themselves, even if it were proven that they could reduce crime. And there are plenty of other measures that could reduce crime too, if we think about it. Random, warrantless searches for one. Or perhaps an Orwellian-style camera in every home, being monitored by government agents. If you find these ideas disgusting, ASFAR sympathizes, and we ask you to uphold the same principles of freedom when it comes to young people.

Q: So I suppose you think that if a police officer saw a 5-year old tottering along aimlessly, to try and get that 5-year old home would be a form of "age-profiling" and would be wrong?

A: No reasonable person should be offended by an offer of help from a police officer or anyone else.  Just as one might offer to assist an elderly person who appeared to be confused, one could certainly approach a small child for the same reason.

But the target of curfews is TEENAGERS.  Curfews generally contain exemptions (for work or classes), so it is clear that their purpose is not just getting kids off the streets for all reasons, but to prevent them from having any LEISURE time outside.

And what does that accomplish?  It wastes the resources of the local police, who should be focusing on dangerous criminals, not curfew breakers.  It violates the Constitutional rights of young citizens.  And it gives politicians the opportunity to say they are "fighting crime" without actually doing anything.  

Q: Won't lowering/abolishing the drinking age cause more drinking? And why should this be done anyways?

A: Drinking age laws keep young people out of clubs, bars, and other establishments that serve alcohol, but they hardly prevent them obtaining it elsewhere.  Instead of having a glass of wine at a family dinner, American young people are more likely to get their first taste of alcohol at a high school keg party.

The rate of teen use and abuse of alcohol has not declined as much as other drugs since the passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. The rate of alcohol-related auto accidents by young drivers remains about the same as it was before that year.  And there is evidence that abuse and overdosage has greatly increased on college campuses since the drinking age of 21 was instituted.

Because of the drinking age, young people are excluded from dinner theaters, concerts, and other events.  Parents are prohibited from using their parental judgment by introducing alcohol to their children gradually.  And the drinking age provides yet another way to make criminals of thousands of young people for mere possession or consumption of alcohol, even when no one has been harmed.  Because of the threat of legal consequences and the infrequent availability of alcohol to young people, many develop a pattern of furtive consumption, or binging whenever the opportunity arises, which may contribute to lifelong problems with alcohol.

Overseas, where drinking ages are much lower or non-existent, young people have few problems with alcohol.  It is because of the "all-or-nothing" mentality promoted by the drinking age -- not the immaturity of young people -- that Americans have such serious problems with alcoholic beverages.

Q: What about smoking?

A: If there are no laws restricting the availability of tobacco products for adults, there should be none for young people.  That's not to say, however, that parents or schools have to tolerate smoking, or that parents should stand back and say nothing if their children start using tobacco.

Q: Won't the repeal of age-based gambling laws cause a whole generation of young gamblers to bet their lives away?

A: Gambling is not just an activity that goes on in casinos.  Age restrictions on gambling prevent young employees from joining their workplace lottery pools and participating in community bingo games or other fundraisers, or sharing the excitement of horse races.  Gambling is often a group activity from which young people are excluded.

If a young person doesn't have any money, he can't gamble.  If a parent gives the young person money for a specific purpose (say, buying lunch at school), there's a very low probability that he or she will take the $5 and run off to Las Vegas.  But young people who work and earn the money on their own should  be able to do as they please with it.  Even gamble.  Even buy glow-in-the-dark sneakers.  You earn it, you spend it.  Isn't that the American Way?