Comments on: Kid’s Rights

By: Virgil Tibbs

Virgil Tibbs — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:24:19 +0000

What are the benefits of allowing children to vote? I don’t see any.

Many kids wouldn’t vote anyway, like young adults. Those that did vote would either be following parents’ instructions or just nerds.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:15:06 +0000

sternhammer:
I am claiming that there is still some correlation that would remain after you knock those things out
This is what’s known as “shared environment”. Many people are sure it’s there a priori, but what isn’t genetic is usually nonshared environment.

Nancy, I don’t vote and like Jacob the grad student I have no problem with my franchise being restricted.

Voting isn’t about information or policy.
Voting affects policy. We (me and some others) want it to be about information to get better policy.

We could all pass any test all aces and then still vote candy for our in-group. In fact, that’s what we would continue to do.
Read Bryan Caplan. The Self-Interested Voter Hypothesis is simply false.

By: Colin Marshall

Colin Marshall — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:50:17 +0000

Aspertarian: Of or pertaining to one who combines the social skills of a victim of Asperger's syndrome with strong adherence to and frequent statement of the principles of rigid, rule-based libertarianism and an uncontrollable tendency to pick fights. Found occasionally in life, but much more commonly on the internet. "See that dude standing in the corner? Don't let him launch into his rant about the legalization of organ sales by child prostitutes; he's a real Aspertarian."

By: Rachel Strohm

Rachel Strohm — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:26:55 +0000

Frelkins raises a good point – knowledge of political history or public policy is no guarantee of altruism, and there does appear to be an unspoken assumption that more knowledgeable enfranchised voters would support altruistic policies towards their disenfranchised peers. I imagine that some would do so, and others might either A) opportunistically take advantage of disenfranchised groups, or B) passively fail to take action to act in a beneficial manner towards them. (And this doesn’t mean failing to support interventionist or liberal policies, such as, say, expanded welfare benefits; one could equally fail to support conservative policies such as tax reform that would attract new businesses to a depressed area.)

What do people think? Are there greater incentives for altruism (say, to avoid social uprisings) or self-interest in this situation?

By: Nancy Lebovitz

Nancy Lebovitz — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:13:21 +0000

I’ve been dubious about restricting the franchise (though this is more about the felons and votes issue) ever since I read something by a gay man about what it was like to realize that the laws (some time ago) which defined gay sex as a felony meant (among other things) much less ability to change those laws.

How sure are you folks that if there are laws restricting the franchise, they won’t exclude people like you?

By: Ben Rayfield

Ben Rayfield — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:26:01 +0000

Assuming we are still keeping the test of your parent’s most common location when you were born…

If a test (instead of age) decides the right to vote, then everyone who signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide (Water) should either be denied the right to anything containing water or the right to vote. Those people are more a danger to society than those commonly imprisoned in insane asylums. If they will unknowingly try to ban water, what else would they try to ban? I hear some people are even trying to ban voting for some people.

By: frelkins

frelkins — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:41:25 +0000

I don’t understand the interest in a “test.” Why? Voting isn’t about information or policy. We could all pass any test all aces and then still vote candy for our in-group. In fact, that’s what we would continue to do.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:14:10 +0000

Twenty-two,

If we were to lower the voting age in Iowa, a younger you wouldn’t have been the only person to be given the franchise. In addition, we would get a small legion of new voters who think “hopenchange” is a thoughtful campaign platform.

Ignorant voters swamp the informed voters in most voting populations.

By: Douglas Knight

Douglas Knight — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:48:41 +0000

Giving kids the right to vote wouldn’t have much of an effect because actually voting is highly correlated with age.

Phil Goetz:
Voters are already ignorant enough.

Are 18 year-olds more ignorant than the rest of the population? Moreover, how does the ignorance of currently voting youths compare?

By: FTGE

FTGE — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:41:33 +0000

@Craig:

Why don’t we just cut out the middleman and sell political positions to the highest bidder, using winning bids to replace taxation entirely? It would make taxation voluntary without bringing in the free-rider problem, and makes sure that people only vote for the positions that affect them.

Laws work the same way.