Emancipation is also an option for those minors who's intelligence and maturity surpasses the norm. I had to seriously consider getting one this year because my parents were trying to force me to go to school (irony++!).
However, it was not mandatory high-school education–they were trying to force me to go to a higher-level institution that I had no desire to go to, and refused to let me make my own choice because I'm still a minor.
Compounding on this, the school would not let me apply for a loan because of my age. They wouldn't even let my parents co-sign on the god damned loan.
Really? That's a bit odd. You might have to find an outside source of funding.
oh, no, they let my parents co-sign. I bitched at them for quite some time until they agreed.
Why? If you couldn't get the loan couldn't you have pushed for going to a different school? Preferably one that isn't as retarded as your current.
I don't think you understand how retarded my parents are about this. My first choice school was half–half–the tuition cost as the one they are making me go to. Not only that, but with the scholarships and loan money I got, my parents would be paying, oh, one thousand dollars a year to send me to college (assuming the school gave all the same scholarships of course)
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
So, if I want to buy a computer with my credit card, I need to hire a lawyer?
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law.
*gasp*
How could you possibly justify restricting someone's right to self determination like that? They're capable of figuring things out on their own, including where party A defaults on the position held by parties B and C under the conditions which are either not met or exceeded due to circumstances as determined under previously mentioned criterion.
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law.
*gasp*
How could you possibly justify restricting someone's right to self determination like that? They're capable of figuring things out on their own, including where party A defaults on the position held by parties B and C under the conditions which are either not met or exceeded due to circumstances as determined under previously mentioned criterion.
Or the tax implications of being in a sub-S corporation as opposed to other forms. I mean, kids understand this stuff! Or they can teach themselves!
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
So, if I want to buy a computer with my credit card, I need to hire a lawyer?
That's a transaction of little importance.
What if you're signing up for the military? Or purchasing considerable property?
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
So, if I want to buy a computer with my credit card, I need to hire a lawyer?
That's a transaction of little importance.
What if you're signing up for the military? Or purchasing considerable property?
That's of significant importance if you don't have a lot of cash. You might not understand how the warranty works, or how the payment schedule works. You might be living beyond your means.
See how messy that can get?
If you're signing up for the military, you should probably talk to a lawyer about it imho and some do. But if you can't afford to talk to a lawyer, no one should force you to do so and expect you to pay for it.
Unless you expect the company or entity asking you to sign to pay the lawyer fee. Which is completely unreasonable because they would pass on that cost to the consumer anyway.
Unless you expect lawyers to do this for free or the government to pay for it? Which would be similarly unreasonable.
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
So, if I want to buy a computer with my credit card, I need to hire a lawyer?
That's a transaction of little importance.
What if you're signing up for the military? Or purchasing considerable property?
Spending over 2 grand on one item could be of incredible importance to certain families. Especially given the specifics of credit card liability, payment requirements, and the ability to fluctuate your APR %. How is lumping everybody into the same economic bracket the correct thing to do rather than analyzing everything on a case by case basis?
Is it correct to assume thus far unstated scientific evidence is reason enough for a state responsibility to enforce compulsory attendance?
No.
Your challenge to compulsory education focus' on the status of minors as legally dependent entities under the guidance of their guardians.
It isn't for us to prove the worth of compulsory education. It is for you to establish why minors should have equal legal footing with adults.
You could also refocus your argument on why parental guardians are forced to send the minors in their care to school, but you can't just shift around your challenge this way.
If we are going to limit responsibility and therefore representation based on ability, why not apply this to other categories such as gender, race, income, etc.? There is scientific proof that certain types of people are more intelligent or responsible than others. Why is age allowed, but other perfectly reasonable universal categories are wrong? They're all discrimination.
So you feel that two year olds should neither be denied the rights nor accorded privileges which differentiate them legally from adults?
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
So, if I want to buy a computer with my credit card, I need to hire a lawyer?
That's a transaction of little importance.
What if you're signing up for the military? Or purchasing considerable property?
You didn't specify much, and one of your criteria was "volume of money." What if I'm buying a new computer, and I want to finance it? Will that be of sufficient duration to need a lawyer? Am I going to have to hire a lawyer in order to go to college, now? Am I going to need one if I want to get married? What about if I'm starting a job?
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
Who enforces parental responsibility? The government. They hold parents accountable for the education of their children, whether it be public, private, or home schooling. So basically, the government already passes the primary burden onto the parents and only steps in when parents fail to fulfill their obligations.
Edit: Oh, I understand what you mean now. Thanatos already laid out the economic repercussions of such a policy. They are not good and they are demonstrably worse than what we have now.
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
Then, like I pointed out earlier, you'd have wealthy parents saying "I'm sending my kid to school," and at least some poor parents saying "I need my kid to work, so no school for him/her."
Why not have a government service? Consider the alternative.
Contracts can be signed by people who have no idea what they are doing. Lawyers to explain things can only be afforded by the rich. Is that really the better choice? This is more or less the system we have right now.
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
...it is. I have a friend who was homeschooled up to sophmore year of High School. Incredibly talented with a shitload of musical instruments, too.
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
Responsible and loving parents would still make their kids go to school.
And you also run the risk of the stupid and careless parents of the world (of which there are many) allowing their kid to do what-the-fuck-ever they want as far as attendance goes. If that sort of thing is allowed early in the kid's education, he/she would be totally fucked if they ever decided to go.
I think contract signing is one field guardian involvement should be required by law. I'm of the opinion a lawyer should be required to fully explain any contract of particular importance if one is not available, for anyone. Importance being defined by duration, volume of money involved, parties involved, etc.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
Then, like I pointed out earlier, you'd have wealthy parents saying "I'm sending my kid to school," and at least some poor parents saying "I need my kid to work, so no school for him/her."
Hilariously, this is one of the reasons that compulsory education was introduced in the first place. Full circle, and all that.
Why not have a government service? Consider the alternative.
Contracts can be signed by people who have no idea what they are doing. Lawyers to explain things can only be afforded by the rich. Is that really the better choice? This is more or less the system we have right now.
The cost would be monumental. In a complete economic sense, I believe it's reasonable to assume that the cost of society dealing with people signing bad contracts is less than the cost of the government providing legal counsel for almost any imaginable contract if someone so demanded.
How many computers are bought each year? Credit cards? Loans? The list is nearly endless. The number of billable hours (at probably no less than $125 an hour, payable in 1/4 hour chunks, including travel time) would be potentially enormous.
Do you see why this would not be an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
Why not have a government service? Consider the alternative.
Contracts can be signed by people who have no idea what they are doing. Lawyers to explain things can only be afforded by the rich. Is that really the better choice? This is more or less the system we have right now.
The cost would be monumental. In a complete economic sense, I believe it's reasonable to assume that the cost of society dealing with people signing bad contracts is less than the cost of the government providing legal counsel for almost any imaginable contract if someone so demanded.
How many computers are bought each year? Credit cards? Loans? The list is nearly endless. The number of billable hours (at probably no less than $125 an hour, payable in 1/4 hour chunks, including travel time) would be potentially enormous.
Do you see why this would not be an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
Why not have a government service? Consider the alternative.
Contracts can be signed by people who have no idea what they are doing. Lawyers to explain things can only be afforded by the rich. Is that really the better choice? This is more or less the system we have right now.
The cost would be monumental. In a complete economic sense, I believe it's reasonable to assume that the cost of society dealing with people signing bad contracts is less than the cost of the government providing legal counsel for almost any imaginable contract if someone so demanded.
How many computers are bought each year? Credit cards? Loans? The list is nearly endless. The number of billable hours (at probably no less than $125 an hour, payable in 1/4 hour chunks, including travel time) would be potentially enormous.
Do you see why this would not be an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
Plus it is restricting your right of self determination again. Saying that I'm not capable of making my own decisions, even after coming of age. If I'm having second thoughts regarding a contract then I shouldn't sign it.
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
You can't just get any lawyer for this, though; you have to get contract lawyers for it. There aren't anywhere near enough contract lawyers to do. Not even close.
But hey, I don't know why I'm arguing against it; I'm gonna be a lawyer. This would be great for me. Suck for everyone else, though.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
Who's been charged with a crime where they'd need legal representation? Are you trying to say that contracts should be viewed in the worst possible light? Because I'm sure there are some contract lawyers who'd like to have a word with you about that.
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
You can't just get any lawyer for this, though; you have to get contract lawyers for it. There aren't anywhere near enough contract lawyers to do. Not even close.
But hey, I don't know why I'm arguing against it; I'm gonna be a lawyer. This would be great for me. Suck for everyone else, though.
I was going to add that the only people who would be happy about this would be contract lawyers
i don't think you want to go into contract law, though. From what I can tell, it's hideously boring though not quite as bad as immigration law.
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
You can't just get any lawyer for this, though; you have to get contract lawyers for it. There aren't anywhere near enough contract lawyers to do. Not even close.
But hey, I don't know why I'm arguing against it; I'm gonna be a lawyer. This would be great for me. Suck for everyone else, though.
I was going to add that the only people who would be happy about this would be contract lawyers
i don't think you want to go into contract law, though. From what I can tell, it's hideously boring though not quite as bad as immigration law.
As a lawyer, it would be good for me regardless of what field I'd want to go into, because it would draw way more lawyers into contract law, and drive up prices for lawyers across the board.
That doesn't make it any less of a stupid idea, though.
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
You can't just get any lawyer for this, though; you have to get contract lawyers for it. There aren't anywhere near enough contract lawyers to do. Not even close.
But hey, I don't know why I'm arguing against it; I'm gonna be a lawyer. This would be great for me. Suck for everyone else, though.
I was going to add that the only people who would be happy about this would be contract lawyers
i don't think you want to go into contract law, though. From what I can tell, it's hideously boring though not quite as bad as immigration law.
As a lawyer, it would be good for me regardless of what field I'd want to go into, because it would draw way more lawyers into contract law, and drive up prices for lawyers across the board.
That doesn't make it any less of a stupid idea, though.
Oh, I meant in reality Any idea about what field you'd want to go into?
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
You can't just get any lawyer for this, though; you have to get contract lawyers for it. There aren't anywhere near enough contract lawyers to do. Not even close.
But hey, I don't know why I'm arguing against it; I'm gonna be a lawyer. This would be great for me. Suck for everyone else, though.
I was going to add that the only people who would be happy about this would be contract lawyers
i don't think you want to go into contract law, though. From what I can tell, it's hideously boring though not quite as bad as immigration law.
As a lawyer, it would be good for me regardless of what field I'd want to go into, because it would draw way more lawyers into contract law, and drive up prices for lawyers across the board.
That doesn't make it any less of a stupid idea, though.
Oh, I meant in reality Any idea about what field you'd want to go into?
We already have a method for protecting minors from unscrupulous contracts without the need for lawyers. It's called the Infancy Doctrine and it allows minors to void contracts without penalty as long as they don't affirm it once they reach of age. However there are certain restrictions in various states and it has been abused by overly clever adolescents.
Lawyers are only provided during criminal proceedings and only then during so called critical stages where there is a significant risk to liberty. And as Thanatos said, contract lawyers are pretty scarce compared to personal injury and criminal lawyers.
We went from the 13th amendment to what Than is going to do with his life and it is an actual improvement of the topic!
But now, I, and I alone, will take this thread in a whole different direction:
Why are we even discussing this?
I consider it a right for everyone under 18 that s/he isn't treated as an adult, why would *anyone* want to get rid of these rights? Children get education, they won't be locked up for the rest of their life if they do anything stupid and they are protected from bastards taking advantage of them. On top of that, they don't even have to pay taxes for it!
And what do they have to do in return? They aren't allowed to vote, they aren't allowed to act in porn movies, they can't have sex with adults and they can't run for president, can't drink alcohol or drive cars. For the average human being, this isn't really a problem.
So why whine and bitch about? Why try to prove that children are adults? Why even try to grow up?
Short answer? It creates the free loader problem of shirking obligations but still expecting to receive the benefits of society. More importantly you are politically powerless and are at the mercy of those who do have political power. You're forgetting that they are unable to vote, make radical life altering medical decisions, are vulnerable to various status offenses, are always under someone's custody, etc. You're simplifying the legal situation of juveniles. It's much more complicated and it's generally not a legal status you want to have for very long.
So here we are at the core of the problem with "people against The Man". They assume The Man is bad. However, the situation of children has only improved throughout history. From having to work when you turn six to getting education from professional teachers up to the age of 18 and after that opportunities to invest more time to get a good paying job.
Naturally, I'm exaggerating when I'm saying I would love to be a child forever. But to complain about being protected, no that would be dumb.
Naturally, I'm exaggerating when I'm saying I would love to be a child forever. But to complain about being protected, no that would be dumb.
Depends on where you are. In the US, that protection is inadequate to deal with parents who are not physically abusive but certainly do not have the minor's best interests or future prospects at heart, and certain aspects of it can be stripped or ignored with little recourse for the minor. God help you if your parents are fucking nuts in a non-beat-your-ass manner if your state has insane emancipation laws.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
Naturally, I'm exaggerating when I'm saying I would love to be a child forever. But to complain about being protected, no that would be dumb.
Depends on where you are. In the US, that protection is inadequate to deal with parents who are not physically abusive but certainly do not have the minor's best interests or future prospects at heart, and certain aspects of it can be stripped or ignored with little recourse for the minor. God help you if your parents are fucking nuts in a non-beat-your-ass manner if your state has insane emancipation laws.
This is very true, and it is a significant problem (we had a thread about this some time ago), but compulsory education has done so much more good than bad, it's not even close to worth reconsidering.
Naturally, I'm exaggerating when I'm saying I would love to be a child forever. But to complain about being protected, no that would be dumb.
Depends on where you are. In the US, that protection is inadequate to deal with parents who are not physically abusive but certainly do not have the minor's best interests or future prospects at heart, and certain aspects of it can be stripped or ignored with little recourse for the minor. God help you if your parents are fucking nuts in a non-beat-your-ass manner if your state has insane emancipation laws.
This is very true, and it is a significant problem (we had a thread about this some time ago), but compulsory education has done so much more good than bad, it's not even close to worth reconsidering.
No, I was addressing his broader point, which has very little to do with compulsory education, except in the "part of what we'd be dealing with if education was not compulsory" way. There's at least one school in this area that deals with kids at high risk of dropping out. Something like 80% of them are the children of farmers whose parents consider their free labor to be far more valuable to the family than they consider a basic education to be to the child. I sincerely doubt that would be enough to get social services involved were education not legally compelled.
Ecoterrorism is actually the single largest terrorist threat at the moment. They don't usually kill people, but they blow up or set on fire very expensive things.
I've just read through this whole thread (someone, shoot me). I know that russia32 is a big proponent of staying on topic, but this thread hasn't been "on topic" for the past six pages or so. Does that mean that he was shown that compulsory education doesn't implicate the thirteenth amendment in any way and had to STFU and GBTC?
BTW Thanatos, where are you in law school? I'm at IU and planning to do criminal trial work (which is why I must say that "crime of passion" doesn't always stay at murder, as it may drop to voluntary manslaughter depending on your jurisdiction).
Posts
*gasp*
How could you possibly justify restricting someone's right to self determination like that? They're capable of figuring things out on their own, including where party A defaults on the position held by parties B and C under the conditions which are either not met or exceeded due to circumstances as determined under previously mentioned criterion.
That would be similarly impossible as your past idea. Could you imagine the cost to the consumer if they had to get a lawyer to explain every "important" contract they signed? And how do you define important? The worth of a certain amount of money differs wildly person to person as well. It would be a mess of a system and wouldn't do much other than put the additional legal fees on the shoulders of the consumer.
Now, I want to know your justification for limiting the liability of children in respect to contracts while you believe that children as young as 5 should have full rights to not go to school.
"I DON"T WANNA GO! I WANT TO WATCH SESAME STREET!" would probably be a popular argument. It seems like a bad basis for public policy, though.
Or the tax implications of being in a sub-S corporation as opposed to other forms. I mean, kids understand this stuff! Or they can teach themselves!
That's a transaction of little importance.
What if you're signing up for the military? Or purchasing considerable property?
What if it were the parent's responsibilities instead of the governments to make that decision?
That's of significant importance if you don't have a lot of cash. You might not understand how the warranty works, or how the payment schedule works. You might be living beyond your means.
See how messy that can get?
If you're signing up for the military, you should probably talk to a lawyer about it imho and some do. But if you can't afford to talk to a lawyer, no one should force you to do so and expect you to pay for it.
Unless you expect the company or entity asking you to sign to pay the lawyer fee. Which is completely unreasonable because they would pass on that cost to the consumer anyway.
Unless you expect lawyers to do this for free or the government to pay for it? Which would be similarly unreasonable.
Spending over 2 grand on one item could be of incredible importance to certain families. Especially given the specifics of credit card liability, payment requirements, and the ability to fluctuate your APR %. How is lumping everybody into the same economic bracket the correct thing to do rather than analyzing everything on a case by case basis?
So you feel that two year olds should neither be denied the rights nor accorded privileges which differentiate them legally from adults?
Who enforces parental responsibility? The government. They hold parents accountable for the education of their children, whether it be public, private, or home schooling. So basically, the government already passes the primary burden onto the parents and only steps in when parents fail to fulfill their obligations.
Edit: Oh, I understand what you mean now. Thanatos already laid out the economic repercussions of such a policy. They are not good and they are demonstrably worse than what we have now.
Contracts can be signed by people who have no idea what they are doing. Lawyers to explain things can only be afforded by the rich. Is that really the better choice? This is more or less the system we have right now.
...it is. I have a friend who was homeschooled up to sophmore year of High School. Incredibly talented with a shitload of musical instruments, too.
Hilariously, this is one of the reasons that compulsory education was introduced in the first place. Full circle, and all that.
The cost would be monumental. In a complete economic sense, I believe it's reasonable to assume that the cost of society dealing with people signing bad contracts is less than the cost of the government providing legal counsel for almost any imaginable contract if someone so demanded.
How many computers are bought each year? Credit cards? Loans? The list is nearly endless. The number of billable hours (at probably no less than $125 an hour, payable in 1/4 hour chunks, including travel time) would be potentially enormous.
Do you see why this would not be an efficient use of taxpayer dollars?
The party signing the contract could request lawyer service. Someone purchasing a computer would pass on the offer to avoid the inconvenience. Where as someone joining the USMC or purchasing a factory would likely take the offer.
The government offers lawyers for the poor for representation in court, this would be similar.
Plus it is restricting your right of self determination again. Saying that I'm not capable of making my own decisions, even after coming of age. If I'm having second thoughts regarding a contract then I shouldn't sign it.
But hey, I don't know why I'm arguing against it; I'm gonna be a lawyer. This would be great for me. Suck for everyone else, though.
Who's been charged with a crime where they'd need legal representation? Are you trying to say that contracts should be viewed in the worst possible light? Because I'm sure there are some contract lawyers who'd like to have a word with you about that.
I was going to add that the only people who would be happy about this would be contract lawyers
i don't think you want to go into contract law, though. From what I can tell, it's hideously boring though not quite as bad as immigration law.
That doesn't make it any less of a stupid idea, though.
Oh, I meant in reality
He wants to make CEO's cry on the stand.
Lawyers are only provided during criminal proceedings and only then during so called critical stages where there is a significant risk to liberty. And as Thanatos said, contract lawyers are pretty scarce compared to personal injury and criminal lawyers.
I just want to do it at the federal level.
And yeah, Bad Kitty is right about the infancy doctrine. However, if we were to treat minors as adults, it wouldn't exist anymore.
We went from the 13th amendment to what Than is going to do with his life and it is an actual improvement of the topic!
But now, I, and I alone, will take this thread in a whole different direction:
Why are we even discussing this?
I consider it a right for everyone under 18 that s/he isn't treated as an adult, why would *anyone* want to get rid of these rights? Children get education, they won't be locked up for the rest of their life if they do anything stupid and they are protected from bastards taking advantage of them. On top of that, they don't even have to pay taxes for it!
And what do they have to do in return? They aren't allowed to vote, they aren't allowed to act in porn movies, they can't have sex with adults and they can't run for president, can't drink alcohol or drive cars. For the average human being, this isn't really a problem.
So why whine and bitch about? Why try to prove that children are adults? Why even try to grow up?
Bustin' out the great quotes this thread.
So here we are at the core of the problem with "people against The Man". They assume The Man is bad. However, the situation of children has only improved throughout history. From having to work when you turn six to getting education from professional teachers up to the age of 18 and after that opportunities to invest more time to get a good paying job.
Naturally, I'm exaggerating when I'm saying I would love to be a child forever. But to complain about being protected, no that would be dumb.
BTW Thanatos, where are you in law school? I'm at IU and planning to do criminal trial work (which is why I must say that "crime of passion" doesn't always stay at murder, as it may drop to voluntary manslaughter depending on your jurisdiction).