In this chapter of The Omnique Way, I will be exploring my views on Age-based Laws, and expanding upon the Librecratic movement. Warning: It's going to be controversial, and may offend. With that said, if you're interested in the topics, from whatever point of view, read on!
In a previous article, found here, I went off on a bunch of principles I believe in. A part of The Omnique Way is going to expand upon those principles, as they apply to the Librecratic political, social and economic system. I intend to expand on almost every item in that previous article, so hold on tight, this ride could get a little rough.
So, this article is going to tackle one of the most controversial elements of my beliefs. Why start with the worst? So I can get it out of the way and focus on the fun stuff that people might actually agree with. Well, that, and I like to stir people up and get their blood flowing. Maybe by the time I'm done with this article, you'll be one of those people.
Age ain't Nothin' but a Number
Yes, I did just go there. Live with it. Anyway, as I stated in the original article, I think that ALL age based laws should be scrapped. Period. So, with that said, how are we to decide when someone is capable of something? That depends on what we're talking about. I see several different categories, and thus different answers.
Restrictions on Substances
- Smoking
- Drinking
- Drugs
A complex topic. As people mature at different rates, this is a very hard to decide topic. I think that possession and/or use of substances, should have no pre-detirmined age limits, but if a young person is seen to be abusing said substances, particularly if an adult is supplying them with the substances for questionable reasons, it should be taken to an officer of the law for investigation into possible wrong-doing. Basically, this should be decided on a case-by-case basis. There's a big difference between a 10 year old having a glass of wine for Christmas dinner with his parents, and a 10 year old hanging out with an unrelated 40 year old who's providing alcohol and/or drugs, quite possibly for the purpose of sexual or emotional exploitation. As I said, case by case basis. Now, note that I specifically stated those rules were to apply to the possession and/or use, I did not mention purchasing in that statement. That is because I think in the case of purchasing, we need to look at a concept in the Librecratic movement, which I call Community Standards.
Community Standards
This is very much related to Voluntary Society, and is a logical extension of that previous concept.
In a Community Standards type programme, there should be organizations, which can define local, regional or national standards. Say for instance, in the province of British Columbia, there was an organization called the BC Addictive Substances Standards Council. This group would be responsible for setting appropriate standards surrounding the marketing and sale of any addictive substances. As in the Voluntary Society idea, these groups are opt-in, but the benefits of opting in will make them worth while for most businesses to comply with. For instance, any company which does not sign on to comply with the BCASSC standards, would not be able to do business with member organizations, INCLUDING other standards organizations which may have prerequisite rules. So, if the BCASSC detirmined that nobody under the age of 16 should be able to walk into a store and buy any addictive substances, but a coffee shop in downtown Vancouver disagrees with this, then they may find they will be unable to buy coffee from the local market, as the market may sell cigarettes, and thus themselves have agreed to follow BCASSC standards.
I may at a later time expand upon the Community Standards concept, as it's own article, at which point, I may pull it out of here and replace the previous paragraph with a reference to the new document. For now, let's continue with the Age-based Laws article.
Technical Restrictions
- Driving
- Equipment operation
- First Aid
- etc.
These are items which have natural restrictions currently based on age, but which are better based on knowledge, maturity, and ability.
Instead of saying that someone must be 16 years old before they can get a drivers license, there will now be both physical and mental tests to see if someone is ready to drive.
Physically, they must be able to reach the vehicle controls, to see out the windows (including into the mirrors), and to be able to operate all essential functions without re-adjusting their position.
Mentally, they must be able to focus on both static and moving targets, and to judge their own momentum and braking capabilities.
Honestly, with a properly defined mental aptitude test, while there may be a few 14 year olds who pass with flying colours, and get their license, I can see a lot of 20 year olds who have licenses now, who would never have been granted them under my system (hang up and drive assholes!)
Voting
A very special case. In a Librecratic system, voting would not only be to choose the people to represent a certain area (local, regional or national), but also to decide upon specific legislation if it's on a referrendum style vote. So how do we choose who can vote?
I'm tossed up on this. I say everyone can vote, regardless of any factor, but I'd sure like to say that every ballot should have a skill testing question on it, to prove the person is smart enough to be voting. I'll leave it to the smart ones out there to figure out how serious I am about that.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
- Age of Majority
- Age of Consent
- Age of ...
The right to choose your own legal guardian, the right to be your own legal guardian, the right to be someone else's legal guardian, the right to choose your own choices about your own body (including sexuality, medical treatment and piercings/tattoos/etc.), and any other right that's currently defined under a "Age of ..." type law, should be all decided on a case by case basis. Period. Everyone matures at a different rate, and thus trying to apply some arbitrary age limit on any of this issues is completely absurd.
Now that said, I think if we separate that into two different categories, then we can come up with default policies, prior to having to go to court.
Guardianship
Any choice regarding guardianship (choosing your own, being your own, being someone elses), should default to being up to the current guardian in the situation (i.e. your parents.) So by default, you can't just say, "I hate my parents, I'm moving out." As they have the default say in the matter. However, you can choose to bring it before a judge, who can grant you permission to be your own guardian.
So, while these cases are being judged on a case by case basis, the default answer is no, unless otherwise decided by a court of law.
Right to One's Own Body
The exact opposite of guardianship, any right regarding your own body, is by default your own, with no laws against it. That said, if your legal guardian is concerned about your choices, they can choose to challenge it in court, and the judge may choose to act upon the action. So in the case of sexual activity, the judge could deam it exploitative, and have the other part(y|ies) charged. In the case of refusing medical treatment, the judge could agree with your legal guardian(s), in which case the medical treatment would be administered.
So, while these cases are being judged on a case by case basis, the default answer is yes, unless otherwise decided by a court of law.
What's my Age again?
So, in summary, all age-based laws in a Librecratic society would be replaced by some other form of testing and/or decision criteria. This would be a more fair, and accurate system, reflecting true abilities and rights of people.
I'm sure there's more I could write about this, and if I think of something, I'll update this article. Until then, I leave you to ponder my principles, uttering my summary declaration of this one: The Age of Ageism is Over!