There are many questions and sceptisisms about what we call "Youth Libertarianism". As with all new ideas there are always questions. It is perfectly normal to ask questions about something you do not fully understand.

What is Youth Libertarianism? Youth Libertarianism is almost like a sort of belief system. Youth Libertarians seek to abolish most, if not all, age restrictions from our law books, since these restrictions make it a crime to be young. And being punished merely for not having lived as long as some others is clearly not reasonable. (Y.L. F.A.Q.)

Are not age restrictions good? About a century ago, the Jim Crow Laws were also considered "good". Those laws punished blacks and kept them in check. There were also other laws restraining the rights of women. Laws such as those are now unheard of. So a new minority needed to be found. A group of people that could have their rights stripped away so the majority could have a sense of superiority. Age restrictions allowed the majority to have near complete control of young people, thus gaining them the false sense of superiority they needed. The problem is that young people (for the most part) either don't seem to notice or care. Blacks fought back and gained rights. Women fought back and gained rights. Youth sit and complain. Fortunatly more youth are becoming aware of their situation and speaking out. (Y.L. F.A.Q.)

Are "kids" really ready to do "adult" things? We live in a segregated world that exists only in theory. There is no REAL distinction between "adults" and "kids" so the government has created artificial barriers which assume all people under a set age are the same and vice versa for those over the age. The laws keep all people under an arbitrailly set age from doing things considered "adult" based on impractical and outdated social modes. And what is worse is that the people whom the laws are imposed upon do not have ANY voice. And the government still has the nerve to say we are a "Democracy" or even a "Republic" when a large portion of the population has no voice in political matters.(Y.L. F.A.Q.)

You do not really want kids to be allowed to smoke, drink, gamble or labor do you? What a person does on their own time is frankly none of the government's business. As long as that person does not harm another person's life, liberty, property, and/or privacy, they should be able to do whatever they want. It definatly should not be punished merely because the person is young.(Y.L. F.A.Q.)

What about societal costs? We would be raising a bunch of binge drinking, cancer ridden, compulsive gamplers if we did away with age based laws. Age based laws DO NOT WORK. Look around you, teens that want to drink, smoke, gamble, etc, do it anyway. Plus the laws are very unrealistic and require far more resources to enforce them than are available or willing to be used. If people want to do something bad enough, they will. (Y.L. F.A.Q.)

If we repeal age based laws wont that be saying that it is ok to do those things? A primary tenant of libertarianism that even though outlawing anything deemed "bad" may seem like a good idea at first, we would end up with a police state Big Brother can only dream of. Things such as eating high fat foods is "bad" so should not it also be illegal? No, of course not, because people should be able to dictate what they consume. Likewise, people should be able to dictate what they do (as long as it does not infringe upon another's rights). (Y.L. F.A.Q.)

There are many questions, but also many good answers. And as long as people are open minded they will see the validity of our words. Though it may be difficult to change, it is necessary for the survival of mankind. Take China for example, during the Ming dynasty Confucianism was reintroduced. Bringing with it values that ensured stability. Then due to the inability to adapt to new times China became weak and the Ming dynasty was overthrown. Other historical events point to the same fact: inability to change leads to the downfall of a society.

Age based restrictions are not just found in homes and daily life. They also show up in court, but often in a different manner. Such as when a Judge ordered an eleven year old boy to stand trial as an adult for the murder of a teenager.(Oblivion#7 - 8) Clearly age restrictions are only enforced when convienient. There are many other cases of youth being tried as adults, showing that the only way a youth can gain the rights of an adult is to murder someone. That in itself is a very sad fact.

In addition there are court cases which clearly show the violation of the constitutional rights of youth. A 16 year old was sentenced to two years in prison for carrying a gun that would have saved his life. 12 days before he had watched his best friend beaten and shot to death. (Lib. Rock - Rights) Cases such as this one show how the constitution does not apply to youth. The right to bear arms is not only an ammendment, it is the second ammendment. Wouldn't that imply that it is fairly important?

The Supreme Court recently ruled that people under the age of 18 do NOT have the constitutional right to have intercourse. (Lib. Rock - Sex) This relates back to the fact that what a person does is none of the government's business as long as that person's actions do not interfere with another's rights. And that there is no REAL difference between a person that is 17 years old and a person who is 18, the difference is only in theory. Unfortunatly the government has decided that it has to invade people's privacy, and then complain about it.

Youth are forced to attend public school usually up until they graduate. Because of this school becomes a primary location where the rights of young people are violated. This is also partially because of the outdated education system. A system long ago designed to create factory workers for the government. As a result there is much bordom, displeasure, apathy and/or stress. Since the education system is so un-integrated and generic there is time for totalitarian and authoritarian administrators to "crack down" on student misbehaviour. Unfortunatly this leads so called "zero-tolerance" policies and un-thinking administrators.

There are many examples of such "zero-tolerance" policies that seem ridiculous when put into perspective. Two thirds of the student body was suspended for refusing the principal's orders to go and pick up their report cards. The students argued that they would be late for their classes. (Oblivion#7 - 8) Why did the principal care if they recieved their report cards right then? It seems to me he should be more worried about how badly two thirds of the students being suspended will reflect upon the school. Another incident happened when a 12 year old boy was suspended indefinatly for refusing to shave. The school explained that he was violating a district policy the "all boys must be clean shaven." (Oblivion.net - News) Cases such as these happen regularly. Sadly most go unnoticed.

People should want to go to school. Learning is a wonderfull thing and we should be thrilled that it is free. The horrible thing is that people do not learn nearly as much as they could. With the combination of outdated teaching standards and the terrible derision that are often commonplace in the classroom. With cases such as when a teacher drew dots and circles on a student's eyelids when he failed to meat her demands. (Lib. Rock - School) Or when a 13 year old is suspended for having Advil in her backpack which results in her failing several classes. (Oblivion#7 - 24) It is not difficult to see why youth dislike school.

There have been MANY occasions in which it has been openly stated that "constitutional rights do not extend into the classroom". Not only is this unjust it also gives teachers and school officials incredible power of children. Students should be willing to learn, they should NOT have to be forced to sit in school if they do not want too. There are also cases of zero-tolerance policies have been so absurd that one must wonder why they were enforced at all. When a sixth grade girl saved the life of a fellow classmate by giving her inhaler to the girl having an asthma attack. Many consider her a hero, but under the district's zero-tolerance drug policy she is suspended. Not to mention that she is treated as a "drug traficker" and the offense was added to her permanent record. (Lib. Rock - School) Are we trying to teach our children that saving lives is a bad thing?

One of the biggest problems with education today is that the school administrators have too much power. So much even that the Supreme Court ruled that school administrators can not be held responsible for sexual harassment by teachers as long as they have no knowledge of it. (Oblivion#8 - 3) That is not reasonable. It is an employers job to know what their employees are doing. Not to mention that this allows teachers to get away with sexual harrasment much easier than before. Administrators seem to have (or at least THINK they have) total control in their school. So much even that they feel they have the right to make three girls remove their clothing during a drug search (in which no drugs were found). (Lib. Rock - Strip Searches) That is just wrong. A school administrator (or teacher for that matter) does not have the right to demand ANYTHING of a student.

The education system needs to change. It has been calcified in an outdated mode and needs reform. If school were less of a prison and more a place for independant persons to come and learn about the world then there would be less student apathy and more productivity. Another problem for youth in schools (and elsewhere) is censorship and "shielding". How can a student be expected to learn if there are resources which are restricted. And of course this brings up the age based discrimination again. A youth should be able to look at or read anything an adult can. Of course, the government wants todays youth to know only certain things, to be blinding to the fact that they are being fooled.

Censorship runs rampant in schools around the country. New York school officials pull several magazines off the library shelves because they deal with sex and sexuality. (Lib. Rock - Censorship) There are two basic ways to go about learning about sexuality. To read about it or to experience it. I suppose that school officials would rather all youth experience it. There is nothing wrong with that except that is NOT the official's intentions. Other incidents such as all books dealing with homosexuality being removed from Madison, Wisconson school library shelves happen fairly often. (Oblivion.net - News) This should not even be considered, much less actually followed through. Blinding a person to a subject can be nothing but harmfull.

And of course there are always situations that make absolutely no sense. When three high school students are fired from their jobs because they refused to turn their strait edge t-shirts inside out. The t-shirts had "DFY" printed on them; that stands for "Drug Free Youth". The district claimed "DFY" was gang related. (Oblivion.net - News) It is completely irrelevant if "DFY" is gang related. The message is good. Why censor it?

Censorship is just one of the many infringements upon the rights youth SHOULD have. There are many others. The key to unlocking a world of equal suffrage is the vote. If youth were granted the right to vote, not only would many of the hypocrisies of the government disapear but then youth would have a say in the matters that affected them. The vote is essential because with the vote the rest comes.

In Article 21 of The United Nations Declaratoin of Human Rights it is stated that "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his/her country, directly or through a freely chosen representative" and that "The people shall be the basis of the authority of government, this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage" Yet people under the age of 18 are not granted this right. In fact they are the ONLY group in the United States of America that is not granted this right.

Furthermore, young people DO pay taxes. In the form of income tax and sales tax. Yet those very same young people are denied the right to vote. "American citizens are denied the right to vote on account of their age. Taxation without representation, a basic violation of the principle this nation was founded upon. American independance was gained as a protest of taxation without representation." (Hein - The Voting Age) The denial of political rights to youth is offensive to fundamental democratic principles. (Blackwell - 3)

There is a whole slew of reasons why youth deserve the right to vote. If youth could vote not only would the injustice of denying them the vote to begin with be slowly undone but also it would lead to the democratization of a whole range of educational, social, and welfare institutions of which youth are the major consumers. (Blackwell - 5)

If youth received the vote it would be reasonable to say that most other age qualifications would also be abolished. That in itself would be a great thing. In addition to that, the abscence of age qualifications would lead to people developing skills at a much earlier age. Letting the more advanced, advance. While those who needed extra help could stay behind and recive it. Instead of the industrial revolution modeled system we have now where everyone progresses at the same rate. (Blackwell - 6)

Another great side effect of youth gaining the vote is that political parties would give a higher priority to issues concerning youth. They would have to. If they didn't then they would be losing a large section of the electorate. "Political equality would require adults to take young people more seriously and abandon patronizing attitudes which systematically underestimate and indicate disrespect for their abilities." (Blackwell - 6)

There are, of course, many arguements for why youth should NOT vote. Such as how young people are ignorant of political affairs and they would not know a good policy from a bad one. If this is true then it is true of adults as well. Adults ignorance of issues has been proven many times, yet no amount of ignorance, misinformation or outright delusion bars an adult from voting. (Blackwell - 2)

Or that youth cannot be considered responsible voters and may cast their vote frivolously. There is no evidence to support this claim but there is much evidence that suggests that MANY adults are less than responsible in their votes. For instance, a proven disposition to vote for the first candidate on the ballot. As with the first claim, dual standards are unacceptable. (Blackwell - 2)

It may be argued that youth are more likely to vote based on the personality of the candidate, rather than the policies. "Leaders, party policy, self-interest and sheer partisan loyalty all influence voters to some degree, and disentangling precisely their separate effect is impossible. Moreover, the different personalities of the party leaders are relevant considerations which any voter might wish to take into account when assessing a party's potential for successful government and the achievement of its objectives." (Blackwell - 2) There is a fear that parents might seek to influence a childs vote. If youth had the right to vote, a greater autonomy and responsibility for their affairs, they would most likely become more independant and value their own judgement. Therefore, parental influence would diminish. Also a secret ballot ensures a voters autonomy so the parent could not know the childs vote anyway. Holt makes a related point when he claims that "a society which had changed its attitude towards children sufficiently to acknowledge their right to vote would be a society in which adults would not seek to coerce young people, or, if they did, such interference would be frowned upon." (Blackwell - 3)

With the arguements layed out and countered it is simple to see that youth deserve the right to vote as much as any other person. Plus, it is not unusual to hear people complain that "not enough people vote", in fact, 52% of eligable voters last year prefered not to vote. Proving that exclusion learned early lasts long. So if youth could vote, there would be a much more active and willing participation in politics and the government. (Blackwell - 3)

In essence, what Youth Libertarians are fighting for is called "Youth Suffrage". The Oxford English Dictionary defines Suffrage as "The right or privilege of voting as a member of a body, state, etc." Youth want suffrage, because it is unfair to systematically reject citizens for trying to advance their opinions. We therefore call a simple universal criteria for voting -- citizenship and sufficient interest to register and vote. (ACS - FAQ)

Youth battleing for political rights will most likely be treated initially with ridicule and derision, and then with misunderstanding and perhaps eventually violence if the experience of the struggle for women's suffrage is any precedent. The greatest obstacle to overcome is the fact that adults refuse to acknowledge that youth suffer any sort of political discrimination and exclusion. Adults do not perceive youth as a discriminated-against minority, but as helpless, inexperience, defenceless young people who NEED protection. "Adult paternalism seeks to protect and if in this process it curtails freedom, truncates potential and destroys civil liberties this is taken to be incidental. The belief in the legitimacy of paternalism justifies and cements the existing power relationships between adults and young people."