Reasons for Supporting Youth Rights

[Anduwaithe]

While I acknoweldge and respect the fact that NYRA itself focuses primarily on the issues and tries to be inclusive of all reasons that people might have for caring about those issues, I feel that it would be useful for the broader Youth Rights Movement to explore the latter in more detail. In pursuit of that goal, I've decided to start this thread, in which I plan to explore and discuss various philosophical and/or legal bases people have for their support of the Youth Rights Movement and/or the goals that it's currently working toward. I'll begin by discussing the Drinking Age.

These are the major schools of thought around this issue that I've been able to discern so far:

1. People who have reached the age of majority should not be subjected to age-based restrictions. (Adult Egalitarianism)
2. People who are old enough to serve in the military should not be subjected to age-based restrictions. (Military Egalitarianism)
3. People have a human right to do whatever they choose with their bodies (so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else), so they should not legally be prohibited from or punished for simply buying or consuming alcohol. (Civil Libertarianism)
4. It's okay for consumption/purchase of a substance to be prohibitied, but if it is, it must be done so for everyone or no one, not just a certain age group. (Universal Egalitarianism)
5. The drinking age should be lowered because it will reduce alcohol abuse and drunk driving, et cetera. (Utilitarianism)

These were just the possible names by which the schools might be called that I could think of off the top of my head. Alternative suggestions are welcome.

Now, obviously NYRA regards all of these ideas as legitimate arguments for lowering it, and I realize that some of us believe that no thought or attention should be given to the diverging (and in some cases, potentially conflicting) philosophical currents within the organization/movement. But personally, I believe that recognizing our differences and agreeing to work together towards a common goal in spite of those differences is much healthier.

So, can anyone else think of some other major schools of thought behind why the drinking age should be lowered?

[Crazed123]

I, personally, am a Civil Libertarian.

My reason for supporting Youth Rights is that young people are people, and therefore have every Right and Liberty that comes with that innate fact of our existence, and if somebody doesn't want to acknowledge that, then we start a nonviolent (cause we don't wish to violate the offender's rights) movement to make them acknowledge it.

The majority should only be allowed any semblance of rule when membership in that majority or related minorities is determined only by opinion.

[Anduwaithe]

Yeah, personally I'm of the idea that all people (including minors) have a right to ingest whatever they want, so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else.

Also, just to clarify: I'm not asking people to state which school of thought they consider themselves to follow (unless they wish to); the point of this thread is, among other things, to identify broad schools of thought and perhaps give them names so that we can carry out discussions on the forum more easily. (Am I the only one here who's tired of seeing youth rights ideologies described in terms of "ASFARian" or "some really long term that describes a point of view that isn't 'ASFARian'"? )

[Fabuluke]

Well, I myself am a civil libertarian and a universal egalitarian, and have been for quite a long time.

[Dr. Feelgood]

I say that since the youth are the future of this country we should have the same fucking rights that the overly-fascist adults have.

[Anduwaithe]

Jess: Those seem mutually exclusive. One says that young people have a right to drink, the other says that drinking is a privilege and should be extended equally. So do you think drinking alcohol is a right, or a privilege?

Dr. Feelgood: Same question.

[Dr. Feelgood]

I think drinking alcohol is a right. A person's body is owned by themselves, not the fucking government, and if they want to fuck it up, so be it. On the other hand, if you want to drink responsibly, you should have the right to do so without government interference.

-Feelgood.

[Fabuluke]

Rights. Not privileges. You've got the right to do whatever you want to yourself, but you have to be given the privilege to do something to someone else.

[Crazed123]

And no, the emotional pain and sorrow they derive from seeing you drunk isn't a harm you need privilege to inflict.

[Anduwaithe]

Crazed: LOL, yeah. Wasn't there someone on here who said that it's okay to legally restrict what you physically do to yourself because it (potentially) harms other people emotionally? Oh yeah, wasn't it in one of the gulag school threads, with regard to minors committing suicide?

[greaternyrania]

I think some people fall in to an "as much as possible category."

[Anduwaithe]

Scott: Could you elaborate on that statement a little?

[KPalicz]

Good list Ken, important perspectives for everyone to consider.

I am firmly in the Universal Egalitarianism category, and believe that is where NYRA properly should be. With Scott's pragmatic addition of course of "as much as possible". I think those two describe NYRA quite accurately, at least how I see NYRA and how I strive to keep the organization to.

The other perspectives are good and have much merit, but I don't think its our place to advocate for them. For example the Civil Libertarian perspective would say that alcohol should not be banned or restricted, period. Doesn't matter if it involves youth or not. If we adopted that as our guiding principle and by some bizarre state of affairs drinking were legalized for youth and outlawed for adults, we'd be bound to fight the restriction placed on adults. Thus we wouldn't be a "youth rights" group, we'd just be an "anti-restriction" or libertarian group.

Also with the Utilitarian argument, I think it is a great benefit to our work and our positions, but it isn't the most important in my mind. If lowering the drinking age actually did result in more alcohol problems (I don't think that'd be the case) then I'd still support it. The Civil Rights issue (defined by Ken as Universal Egalitarianism) is preeminent in my mind.

[KPalicz]

Scott means that many people in NYRA, and notably official NYRA policy, is not absolutist. That, I feel, is the main difference between NYRA and ASFAR. We are more than willing to compromise if it pushes us in the right direction.

[KPalicz]

(btw, this is a good topic, put it up on your blog and I'll link you)

[Anduwaithe]

Oh, okay. I wasn't sure if he was responding to what I had said to Crazed, or to my original post.

However, there's one small problem: you can't answer the question "Why do you support youth rights?" with "As much as possible"! That's a school of thought surrounding what action the movement/organization should take, not why action should be taken in the first place.

(Not that I wish to discourage discussion on the "what" of youth rights; I'm just clarifying that it doesn't really answer the question of "why" that I started the thread with.)

[greaternyrania]

Someone could support youth rights because they think people should have "as much freedom as possible."

[Anduwaithe]

Ah, okay, now I see what you're getting at. In other words, "it doesn't matter whether drinking is a right or a privilege; I support lowering it because it will create more freedom in society (or for youth) in general"?

[KPalicz]

I've given a longer response here: http://www.oneandfour.org/archives/2...sal_egali.html

[Anduwaithe]

Good list Ken, important perspectives for everyone to consider.

Thanks.

I am firmly in the Universal Egalitarianism category, and believe that is where NYRA properly should be. With Scott's pragmatic addition of course of "as much as possible". I think those two describe NYRA quite accurately, at least how I see NYRA and how I strive to keep the organization to.

Yes. I think that much of NYRA's success is due in part to the fact that it welcomes people of many differing youth rights ideologies, and has officially adopted a fairly "moderate" stance when it comes to age-based restrictions.

The other perspectives are good and have much merit, but I don't think its our place to advocate for them. For example the Civil Libertarian perspective would say that alcohol should not be banned or restricted, period. Doesn't matter if it involves youth or not. If we adopted that as our guiding principle and by some bizarre state of affairs drinking were legalized for youth and outlawed for adults, we'd be bound to fight the restriction placed on adults. Thus we wouldn't be a "youth rights" group, we'd just be an "anti-restriction" or libertarian group.

Yep. While I and many others here see youth rights as simply being the youth-oriented part of a broader spectrum of human rights (such as the right to self-harm, the right to vote, etc.), an official stance like that probably wouldn't be particularly useful for an organization such as NYRA, at least for the time being.

Also with the Utilitarian argument, I think it is a great benefit to our work and our positions, but it isn't the most important in my mind. If lowering the drinking age actually did result in more alcohol problems (I don't think that'd be the case) then I'd still support it. The Civil Rights issue (defined by Ken as Universal Egalitarianism) is preeminent in my mind.

Agreed. (Except in my case, I also view the "right to drink" as more important than utilitarian issues.)

(btw, this is a good topic, put it up on your blog and I'll link you)

I was hoping to do more discussion on the forums before I wrote some blog entries on this. Though I see you've just linked to this thread, instead, for now. Thanks. (Great entry, by the way. )