I generally like the draft requirements for citizenship, but I don't understand the reason for allowing a 12 year old full citizenship rights.
My major objection is simply that few 12 year olds have the wisdom to be responsible citizens. Their basic education is not even completed yet. They are not mature adults. Certainly they are not yet old enough to pay their dues in the military. Do you suggest that a 12 year old be allowed to own automobiles and real estate?
This also seems to contradict your high view of family rights and responsibilities. 12 year olds belong under the care and supervision of their parents, but this appears to approve early independence - for what purpose?
I have not finished reading the entire set of Foundations documents, so perhaps I have missed some of your reasoning.
Understand that citizenship in this particular case implies much more responsibility and accountability than "independence" (from parental oversight) does in this country today. Also, 12 years old is only a minimum age. Few 12-year-olds would be inclined to leave the ease and security of home life to pay taxes, serve in the military, etc. On the other hand, I have known many teenagers (on the order of 14-16 years old) who are very responsible, have had excellent academic training so that they are beyond the high school realm and are attending college classes, and about whom I would have no qualms about them receiving the full rights of citizenship should they be so inclined. There are tests on understanding that they must pass, and a compact of citizenship that they must sign, which can help to evaluate their readiness and underscore the responsibilities they are taking on in making such a choice. But I think that as long as these are effective and upheld, we should lean towards the freedom of individuals to choose to take on such responsibilities, rather than the arbitrary rules of a government that would make them wait. This is my opinion.
These are excellent questions--precisely the ones we have to work out to see if this system is workable.
My purpose in lowering the age to 12 was not so much that I thought most 12 year olds would be ready, but that we allow for those few who may qualify and who desparately need to declare their independence to get out of oppressive family or environmental situations.
Anonymous correctly points out that it would not be easy for a 12 year old to qualify. He or she would have to be pretty extraordinary to meet all the tests and demonstrate the financial responsibility factors. I would like citizenship to be a real prize--a badge of honor that demonstrates a certain amount in one's pride of country and ability to succeed.
While I fully want to avoid giving incentives to leave family life (which I do by making it illegal for government to give and benefits to runaway kids) by allowing children to have more or less the final say as to whether they stay with a family or leave it, coupled with the necessity to make their own way or get voluntary assistance from others if they leave, we provide a balance between parental and children's rights.
I'm a firm believer in parental influence, but I don't ever want to give government the power to enforce parental influence. I think parents ought to have to work hard to teach and convert their children to the right way of doing things. I think parents ought to shoulder the responsibility to shield their children from excess public influences that might corrupt them--rather than tasking government to be the censor of TV, schools etc, or worse yet to task government with forcing children to stay at home.
Remember too that there is the "resident" category--one step down from the citizen. A child could move into that category if he wanted to be independent and yet not be able to qualify for citizenship. This would actually be the most logical first step for an enterprising young teen.
Joel Skousen
Joel,
Out of curiosity, why is there an age requirement at all? By definition, any age requirement is arbitrary, as we have noted here. Therefore, it would seem to be inappropriate to discriminate on the basis of age in the application for citizenship. You already have reqirements set for passing the language and law/government tests. Wouldn't these be sufficient to ensure that a person is of proper maturity when he is granted citizenship?
THE AMERICAN(VOLUNTARY)SYSTEM OF MILITARY SERVICE
As It Prevailed Till The Begining Of 1917
From the first,the regular American army had been
a volunteer force.
The United States military forces consisted of the Federal Regular Army,obtained by voluntary enlistment;of the National Guard,belonging to the different States and also made up of volunteers,this constituting the "organized militia";and of the "reserve militia" which was unorganized.The Militia law read as amended in 1908:
"The militia shall consist of every able- bodied
male citizen of the respective States...and every able-bodied male citizen of foreign birth,who has declared his intention to become a citizen,who is more than 18 and less than 45 years of age"
Enlistment in the Regular Army was for seven years, the first four in active service with the colors, and the remaining three "on furlough"
with out pay, attached to the "Army Reserve"
Men could enlist for a second term of seven years,under certain prescribed conditions.First enlistment were limited to men between 18 and 35 years of age and the minimum height was nominally 5 feet 4 inches, and the chest measurement 32 inches,but a certain relaxation of standards was permitted.( All of the preceeding is from
Collier's New Dictionary of the English Language
61st edition 1928 edition.page 1049)
as to the 12 years of age
Until @1971, 21 years of age was considered the age of full adulthood.This was developed over many
hundreds of years.Humans go thru "7 years" periods of life. 0-7 young child
7-14 child
14-21 adolescent
Celeste,
By age 12, the ability to think morally and to understand most concepts vital to residency or citizenship is well-developed. Children younger than 12 often aren't mature enough to make wise decisions. (Not all 12 year old's are, either, but there are enough to make 12 a good age.) I understand Joel's intent in setting the age requirement at 12 to be to protect the child from himself as much as anything else--a 10 year old's temper tantrum or whim is by no means a valid decision when it comes to leaving home or the protection and care of his parents. Every child that decides to run away should not have the legal ability to do so. Remember also that there is a protection for any children in "imminent danger," so those wishing to leave who are suffering may do so.
We're not talking about children running away from home. We're talking about becoming a citizen through a very well defined process. A temper tantrum is not going to allow a 10 year old to pass a test on constitutional law, nor does petty rebelliousness translate into a desire to become a citizen. There is a difference between leaving home out of a sense of "imminent danger" and becoming a full-fledged citizen. You may want to review Joel's webpage on the Citizen Compact (http://www.joelskousen.com/Philosophy/compact.html). You can see this is not just a blind recognition of "independence" but a clear contract with the state. I doubt many teenagers at all would like to take on the responsibilities and duties of citizenship -- yet I see no reason for an arbitrary age requirement as part of the citizenship test when other forms of testing for maturity and capability of understanding what citizenship means already exist.
Selecting age 12 was not entirely arbitrary. Even though I picked an age much lower than what I thought could be achieved by most teenagers I really have never seen someone lower than the age of 12 have enough experience and maturity to exercise these citizenship rights. Besides, with the potential of declaring one's independence by becoming a "resident" there is sufficient autonomy there not to need full citizenship. I certainly don't want to encourage some prideful parents to engage in a contest of trying to see whose child can be the "youngest citizen in the world".
Joel Skousen
Relative to Alonso's question about whether this age requirement encourages children to leave home, the answer is both yes and no. It does provide that option, but the price is high, so it is discouraged. I want the barrier to be high so as not to encourage easy escape. However, by providing a safety valve for children living under abusive parents, we lessen the tendency of the state to feel it must intervene by force (which is strictly limited in my constitutional proposal).
I also don't believe in using state power to force children to stay at home against their will. Since there would be no state funding for homeless runaways, there would be a disincentive to leave home, unless there was ample cause. Sure, there will always be evil temptation trying to pull children away, but the state shouldn't try to substitute for parent vigilence. Parents need to work hard at keeping their children, converting them to what is right and shielding them from real evil. There would, of course, be laws to protect against deceptive or fraudulent attempts by others to penetrate the protections a parent places around his children. I would recommend it be a crime, for example, to solicit sexual or pornographic contact with a child still under parental protection. But that's another thread, so don't respond to that here.
Joel Skousen
Joel,
I understand that the choice of 12 years old is not entirely arbitrary -- in fact, most people would argue that it is very young considering the requriements of citizenship. However, consider this point. Most people view age requirements as "coming of age" marks, such as the driving age, the drinking age, even the retirement age. How many parents buy their kids a car just because they turned 16, regardless of their level of maturity? On the other hand, consider something as self-regulating as the age for starting college. Most kids start college around the age or 18, because that happens to be when they finish high school. However, many kids are ready for it earlier than that, and many people choose to put it off for a variety of reasons. There are some families in this world who would push/encourage their child to enter college much earlier than the norm, for one reason or another -- and there is definitely a distasteful level of pride demonstrated in a majority of those cases. But I don't see why they should be prohibited. Actually, I don't see anything wrong with allowing such families to make that decision. College is expensive, and requires a certain level of maturity as well as intelligence to succede. The parents get no special treatment (other than perhaps donations on a voluntary basis from donors who would like to help with expenses), and the kid gets no special treatment in his responsibilities just because he's young. If he can make it, fine, if not, he drops out.
The same kind of detterents are in place in your Citizen Compact. The individual has to pass a language test and a constitutional principles test in order to qualify. Once he has, he must agree to pay a citizens' tax -- which would be more than the head tax of a mere dependent -- and would serve as a natural prohibition, or at least a consideration. Then there is the required military training -- which would not be waved because of age, even though the nature of the training may have to be modified somewhat -- and the voting requirements. There are a lot of things to consider in deciding to become a citizen, and I think people should be free to settle on their own "proper age" to do so. If they are, it will likely settle around 18-21 as the default, since that is considered the average age of maturity in this society. Young people who wish to become more independent can have the option of applying for citizenship, but will likely opt naturally for the resident category, as you have suggested. It provides a level of independence without all the requirements and responsibilities. In fact, it's a natural "apprentice" category -- a role that many young people just venturing into the world are ready and willing to take.
My point is, if you keep age out of the picture, people will be less likely to "push the envelope" and will concentrate more on the merit requirements and the duties required of citizens -- and base their decision on those factors instead of how old they are.
Celeste makes a compelling argument. I think she is correct. The requirements, especially military training (which must have have age limits for safety reasons) would virtually prohibit young people from becoming citizens. This means we will have to work out some language to allow for citizenship of those that are handicapped physically, who cannot meet the normal military requirements of training, but who can still serve in some way. And in the latter case, would this not provide an exception to the young applicant as well? Food for thought.
Joel
I do think that some way can be found to allow a young person who has become a citizen to fulfill his military service requirement. Not to be sent to the battle front, of course, but fulfilling some level of basic training at home and then performing some role domestically. Such cases need not necessarily be written into the constitution, just dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Certainly the prospect of having to fulfill the military requirement, as well as other responsibilities of citizenship, would make such a decision a serious one to make, for the individual and his family. As long as it is clear there will be no "free riding" in being a citizen just because of age, I think the prohibitions will be natural in most cases.