by Aaron J. Biterman <libertarian17@aol.com>
Introduction
The voices of young people are not heard in America. As a young person who is actively involved in local and national political campaigns, crusades for equal rights, and youth rights, I know all too well that youth have no voices in America in this, the Twenty-first Century. People are astonished that someone like myself cares enough to write articles about political issues and equal rights. Adults are astonished that I sometimes know more than they know. How could a teenager possibly know more than an adult? It's possible, and, in fact, quite common, despite traditional biases.
Those of us involved in youth rights are often considered radical liberals who want youth to conquer the world leaving adults in the shadows. This myth is just that: a myth. I reject the notions that I am a radical reformer. The fact is that I am ultra-conservative in philosophy, and even more so when it comes to youth rights.
Traditionalism
All too often, our law books are filled with arbitrary and unfair age restrictions put together by legislators that do not have to listen to most young people. Yet a century ago, youth had more rights than they do today. A century before that, youth had even more rights and privileges. Those of us working to attain equal rights for youth are attempting to restore the important principles valued by our ancestors, and therefore we are traditional in the most conventional sense.
Age Restrictions did not exist in the United States until the 19th century. Prior to that, people of any age were allowed to have sexual relations with whomever they wanted, drink at any age, and engage in any activity that was not harmful to others. That is the principle that we, as youth rights advocates, want a return to. We want to turn back the clock to the values and morals upheld by our ancestors and turn away from the closed-minded, power-hungry controls of Washington bureaucrats.
Societal Welfare
But how could we possibly end age restrictions? What about the societal costs?
Pragmatically, age-based laws just don't work. Look around you any typical day and you will still find teenagers drinking, smoking, gambling, staying out at night, and even working when the law says otherwise. Why is this? Because it takes an enormous sum of manpower and other resources that don't exist to enforce age-based laws that are unrealistic in the first place. Plus, what resources that are available to enforce age-based laws would be better spent in going after real criminals; murderers, rapists, and thieves, rather than making harmless young people expressing themselves into criminals. Despite curfew laws, sexual consent laws, and prohibition laws, young people continue to engage in the activities deemed "against the law". The fact is that the young people in America realize the laws against such activities limit their individual liberties and limit their freedom. Hence, they have taken a stand against such laws: they ignore them, and deem them null and void.
Responsibility
Proponents of age-based laws will argue that, if the laws are repealed, society will be condoning the activities protected under the laws. This notion has little validity.
All too often, many people think that if something is bad, then it should be illegal. It sounds reasonable at first glance, yet it makes little sense when evaluating the premise in full.
Consider the following example: few people would argue that eating high-fat foods is good for anybody. Therefore, if we are to make everything that is bad illegal, then high-fat foods would be legally banned. Theoretically, it would mean that society would be better off in the long-run if it banned high-fat foods (healthier people, lower medical bills, and such). Still, even the most ardent advocate of government intervention into private behavior can see something wrong with this proposal. So, the government rightfully allows people to consume whatever foodstuffs they may since human beings have an intrinsic right to govern their own food intake so long as they do not force a funnel into someone else's mouth and force-feed them. Just because something is "bad" or unacceptable to society's psychologically manufactured taboos does not give government the right to make it illegal.
Furthermore, what ever happened to the value most adorned by our ancestors:
the value of responsibility. Youth should be taught by nurturing and loving
parents the inherent evils of alcohol, drugs, and prostitution. If a child
is brought up with such values, as I was, then there is no need for that
child to engage in such activities. The welfare state within
America must end, and we all must take personal and individual responsibility
for our own actions. For youth, responsibility can only take shape if one
realizes the consequences of one's actions and promises oneself to improve
in the future.
But Kids Aren't Smart Enough
My opponents argue that children aren't smart enough to make valid, reasonable decisions for themselves. The reason most Americans believe this is that that is what they have been told since the very beginning. That is the atmosphere with which hey have been brought up. That is the way were taught to live. That is what was perpetuated upon them.
Under our status quo laws, the government has created a falsely segregated world that exists only in theory. Adolescents and adults are thoroughly intermixed into everyday life already. Short of puberty, there are no natural lines that can rigidly separate young people from older people, so the omnipotent state has created artificial barriers for those they deem not as wise: the young.
Sexual Consent Laws
An issue which is rarely brought up will now be tackled head on: sexual consent laws.
As someone under the arbitrary age limit of eighteen, the reader cannot conclude that I have a desire to sleep with younger individuals because I propose abolishing sexual consent laws. What the reader can and should conclude is that I am pro-freedom, pro-responsibility, and pro-tradition.
It's about time that we repeal sexual consent laws so that young people can engage in sexual relations with whomever or whatever they'd like. If a young male and a young female want to engage in sexual intercourse, who am I to stop them? Who is the State to come into their lives and say: "STOP. You cannot do that"?
The responsibility lies solely with the individual.
What about rape? Surely if sexual consent laws are repealed, then rape will be more bound to happen opponents argue. But the fact of the matter is that we have rape laws to protect the bodies of people who are innocently taken advantage of. How many laws must be legislated to protect the bodies of human beings? One law is sufficient. Not three. Not five. Certainly not eight.
Our Government and our States are law-hungry. The more laws, the better. The more prohibitions, the better. It's time to elect a common sense American who will not pass new laws, but will review the laws we already have passed and adjust them to Twenty-first Century standards with the desire for freedom in mind.
As George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." What other statement rings with more truth?
Take Action
Get involved in organizations (http://www.freeyellow.com/members8/youthrights)
which
will help to advance the cause of youth rights. We will never settle
for less than social EQUALITY and personal FREEDOM.
--
Aaron J. Biterman is a public high school student who writes from a
moral perspective on a wide range of topics: libertarianism, youth rights,
history, morality, freedom, and philosophy. He is on the Board of Directors
for Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions (ASFAR
--
http://www.asfar.org).