13 ms·

Japan plans to lower age of adulthood to 18 (2018)

122 points by gscott 8y ago

saagarjha 8y ago
> The bill includes clauses that are designed to protect against this problem. For example, young people will be able to cancel a contract if they believe salespeople have manipulated or pressured them into signing it. I’m curious to know how this is codified legally. Presumably this isn’t just a blanket “oh no I was conned into an agreement that should be invalidated”?
- hnarn 8y ago
  Many countries have laws that require certain types of contracts to have an obligatory right to withdraw within a certain time. In my country, all contracts that have been entered "remotely" for example (over phone, over the Internet, etc.) have this, meaning that if you enter a contract over the phone, it can be nullified within a certain period for any reason. So in these cases, whether you were "conned" or not is not a part of the legal language, which is probably very much a conscious move. It simply extends the customers right to withdraw from an agreement, keeping the reason for it legally irrelevant.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Though there is a downside. I decided to start working when I was 16, and it was hard to keep business with no right to enforce my own liabilities in the contract.
    - hnarn 8y ago
      I wasn't claiming that it's ideal, or something that should be applied to all contracts. I only answered the question of how this could be constructed in the legal sense. What types of contracts that are reasonable to include under a provision like this is an open debate.
    - slavik81 8y ago
      The right to be held to your side of the bargain is perhaps not immediately obvious as an important right, but there's a decent bit that has been written on the topic. For example: "Among the legal privileges of corporations, two that are mentioned in textbooks are the right to sue and the "right" to be sued. Who wants to be sued! But the right to be sued is the power to make a promise: to borrow money, to enter a contract, to do business with someone who might be damaged. If suit does arise, the "right" seems a liability in retrospect; beforehand it was a prerequisite to doing business." ~ Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict
- lugg 8y ago
  It's likely a form of misrepresentation law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation
- jgowdy 8y ago
  I would guess it's a simple cooling off period, which some states in the US have. It gives you 72 hours to recend the agreement. This allow you to escape the social pressures of the room where the contract is being signed. Allows you to escape the pressures of salesmanship and techniques. Allows you to consult with friends and family. I understand arguments for and against these cooling off periods. However, I think for individual consumers they do more good than harm.
pattusk 8y ago
> But teenagers will still be banned from smoking, drinking alcohol and gambling until they are 20. The logic of this escapes me. Although the article does not seem to mention it, it seems probable that the voting age will likely also be lowered to 18. This means teenagers will be considered old enough to make decisions that will affect the entire country, all the while being considered too immature to make decisions that will really only affect them individually.
- YinglingLight 8y ago
  Smoking/Drinking/Gambling restrictions are directed to protecting those vulnerable. This is not the same cross-section of civically motivated 18 year olds. Age barriers are the most efficient, + most politically correct tool the government has in regards to demographics.
- jimcsharp 8y ago
  Vote for a lower drinking age.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    What's the benefit though? a larger group of people getting stomach cancer, in the country that has already the top stomach cancer rate in the world?
- devoply 8y ago
  Other than the allure of forbidden fruit I don't see what you actually lose by not drinking, smoking or gambling for those 2 formative years.
  - insertnickname 8y ago
    Why not make it a hundred years?
    - devoply 8y ago
      Why prevent sexually mature humans from engaging in sex?
fenomas 8y ago
This article is a year old; the law it discusses was approved last June.
miki123211 8y ago
If you restrict people under the age of <magical unexplainable constant x> from doing something, they usually will find the means and do it anyway, but out of govt control, so it migt be even worse than if you didn't try. That is true about porn, alcochol, tobacco, working (I could never get that one) and lots of other things.
- ramblerman 8y ago
  I agree that the number is arbitrary, and probably not a good one but I'm not sure that warrants not having it at all. Surely we would agree 7 year olds should be kept from (porn, alcochol, tobacco, working 'for money')
  - praneshp 8y ago
    Some HN-ers would say "why dictate a 7-year old, let them watch what they find", then head to a YouTube kids thread and brag about only giving their kids 1990s style phones.
    - TremendousJudge 8y ago
      I think those are probably separate groups of people. In fact, the ones that argue the first point tend to not actually have kids/interact with children in general
- tenebrisalietum 8y ago
  The thinking behind child labor laws insofar as working restrictions is that they should be in school and getting an education during those years. Of course "train-on-the-job"-style apprenticeships are education, but this gets into how blue-collar labor seems to take a backseat to tech jobs.
- simonsarris 8y ago
  > under the age of [...] working (I could never get that one) It has been suggested that many schemes (disallowing child work outside of family farms and firms, elongating school to mandatory "high school", and then at the other end of the spectrum, social security and "retirement") were primarily to bolster employment % issues among the rest of the population (the not young and not old), and not so much for the other intended aims (stop "bad" child labor, "education", "retirement"). I do not know if there is much truth to this, other than for Social Security where proponents said precisely that (Depression era: retiring older workers would free up employment for young men). It seems sensible that child labor laws followed a similar pattern of thinking. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938 https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938
nkkollaw 8y ago
Where does the age 18 comes from? I see that it's the age of adulthood in most countries. Your brain and body stop developing at 23 if I'm not mistaken?
- qntty 8y ago
  Presumably some sort of pragmatic balance between protecting children from child labor and war on the one hand, and having enough young people in the society to keep the economy going and military staffed.
- qball 8y ago
  It's completely arbitrary and inconsistent everywhere (it probably initially stems from how many males of that age can be drafted and yield a net benefit). Societies routinely violate this through their justice systems ("tried as adult" is a concept in many countries) and their taxation systems (taxation without representation is anathema to at least one country except in this case for some reason). >Your brain and body stop developing at 23 if I'm not mistaken? And your brain and body begin majorly degenerating past about 60 (insurance data rates them as causing about the same number of accidents per mile as beginning drivers starting at that age), but most countries don't strip your rights at that age.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

122 points by gscott 8y ago

> The bill includes clauses that are designed to protect against this problem. For example, young people will be able to cancel a contract if they believe salespeople have manipulated or pressured them into signing it. I’m curious to know how this is codified legally. Presumably this isn’t just a blanket “oh no I was conned into an agreement that should be invalidated”?

hnarn 8y ago
Many countries have laws that require certain types of contracts to have an obligatory right to withdraw within a certain time. In my country, all contracts that have been entered "remotely" for example (over phone, over the Internet, etc.) have this, meaning that if you enter a contract over the phone, it can be nullified within a certain period for any reason. So in these cases, whether you were "conned" or not is not a part of the legal language, which is probably very much a conscious move. It simply extends the customers right to withdraw from an agreement, keeping the reason for it legally irrelevant.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Though there is a downside. I decided to start working when I was 16, and it was hard to keep business with no right to enforce my own liabilities in the contract.
  - hnarn 8y ago
    I wasn't claiming that it's ideal, or something that should be applied to all contracts. I only answered the question of how this could be constructed in the legal sense. What types of contracts that are reasonable to include under a provision like this is an open debate.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    The right to be held to your side of the bargain is perhaps not immediately obvious as an important right, but there's a decent bit that has been written on the topic. For example: "Among the legal privileges of corporations, two that are mentioned in textbooks are the right to sue and the "right" to be sued. Who wants to be sued! But the right to be sued is the power to make a promise: to borrow money, to enter a contract, to do business with someone who might be damaged. If suit does arise, the "right" seems a liability in retrospect; beforehand it was a prerequisite to doing business." ~ Thomas Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict
lugg 8y ago
It's likely a form of misrepresentation law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misrepresentation
jgowdy 8y ago
I would guess it's a simple cooling off period, which some states in the US have. It gives you 72 hours to recend the agreement. This allow you to escape the social pressures of the room where the contract is being signed. Allows you to escape the pressures of salesmanship and techniques. Allows you to consult with friends and family. I understand arguments for and against these cooling off periods. However, I think for individual consumers they do more good than harm.

pattusk 8y ago

> But teenagers will still be banned from smoking, drinking alcohol and gambling until they are 20. The logic of this escapes me. Although the article does not seem to mention it, it seems probable that the voting age will likely also be lowered to 18. This means teenagers will be considered old enough to make decisions that will affect the entire country, all the while being considered too immature to make decisions that will really only affect them individually.

YinglingLight 8y ago
Smoking/Drinking/Gambling restrictions are directed to protecting those vulnerable. This is not the same cross-section of civically motivated 18 year olds. Age barriers are the most efficient, + most politically correct tool the government has in regards to demographics.
jimcsharp 8y ago
Vote for a lower drinking age.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  What's the benefit though? a larger group of people getting stomach cancer, in the country that has already the top stomach cancer rate in the world?
devoply 8y ago
Other than the allure of forbidden fruit I don't see what you actually lose by not drinking, smoking or gambling for those 2 formative years.
- insertnickname 8y ago
  Why not make it a hundred years?
  - devoply 8y ago
    Why prevent sexually mature humans from engaging in sex?

fenomas 8y ago

This article is a year old; the law it discusses was approved last June.

miki123211 8y ago

If you restrict people under the age of <magical unexplainable constant x> from doing something, they usually will find the means and do it anyway, but out of govt control, so it migt be even worse than if you didn't try. That is true about porn, alcochol, tobacco, working (I could never get that one) and lots of other things.

ramblerman 8y ago
I agree that the number is arbitrary, and probably not a good one but I'm not sure that warrants not having it at all. Surely we would agree 7 year olds should be kept from (porn, alcochol, tobacco, working 'for money')
- praneshp 8y ago
  Some HN-ers would say "why dictate a 7-year old, let them watch what they find", then head to a YouTube kids thread and brag about only giving their kids 1990s style phones.
  - TremendousJudge 8y ago
    I think those are probably separate groups of people. In fact, the ones that argue the first point tend to not actually have kids/interact with children in general
tenebrisalietum 8y ago
The thinking behind child labor laws insofar as working restrictions is that they should be in school and getting an education during those years. Of course "train-on-the-job"-style apprenticeships are education, but this gets into how blue-collar labor seems to take a backseat to tech jobs.
simonsarris 8y ago
> under the age of [...] working (I could never get that one) It has been suggested that many schemes (disallowing child work outside of family farms and firms, elongating school to mandatory "high school", and then at the other end of the spectrum, social security and "retirement") were primarily to bolster employment % issues among the rest of the population (the not young and not old), and not so much for the other intended aims (stop "bad" child labor, "education", "retirement"). I do not know if there is much truth to this, other than for Social Security where proponents said precisely that (Depression era: retiring older workers would free up employment for young men). It seems sensible that child labor laws followed a similar pattern of thinking. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938 https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938

nkkollaw 8y ago

Where does the age 18 comes from? I see that it's the age of adulthood in most countries. Your brain and body stop developing at 23 if I'm not mistaken?

qntty 8y ago
Presumably some sort of pragmatic balance between protecting children from child labor and war on the one hand, and having enough young people in the society to keep the economy going and military staffed.
qball 8y ago
It's completely arbitrary and inconsistent everywhere (it probably initially stems from how many males of that age can be drafted and yield a net benefit). Societies routinely violate this through their justice systems ("tried as adult" is a concept in many countries) and their taxation systems (taxation without representation is anathema to at least one country except in this case for some reason). >Your brain and body stop developing at 23 if I'm not mistaken? And your brain and body begin majorly degenerating past about 60 (insurance data rates them as causing about the same number of accidents per mile as beginning drivers starting at that age), but most countries don't strip your rights at that age.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]