2 ms·

>I wonder if this could have other legal applications. Not in any country that believes in equality before the law; the concept is that you're not allowed to c

by qball 5y ago

>I wonder if this could have other legal applications. Not in any country that believes in equality before the law; the concept is that you're not allowed to create 2 classes of citizens, which is what this law effectively does. Not that the US is at all perfect in this regard, and nearly every state establishes some form of this, but effectively making a group of citizens permanent children should be troubling to anyone who values the concept of equality before the law.

kelseyfrog 5y ago
Until we get suffrage for minors, banning cigarettes is peanuts.
dougmwne 5y ago
I have a higher social security retirement age than my parents, even though life expectancy is dropping. We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool, and times when it is not or should be unconstitutional.
- qball 5y ago
  >We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Crucially, however, none of those rules involve criminal or civil penalties (outside of the distinction between who is and is not considered a full member of society; there are no tiers between full members outside of "does qualify as an adult" and "does not qualify"). It's worth noting that the part of the Constitution that deals with this was laid down after the US fought an incredibly destructive 4-year war against itself *to deny itself its own ability to pass cohort-based law*, though it took a good 100 years after that war for the results to be fully incorporated. Of course, the US certainly isn't perfect in this regard, and this can be abused in the other direction ("In its majestic equality the law forbids both rich and poor to sleep beneath bridges...") but "honor what the 14th says" remains the cultural law of the land for very good reason. >Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool Apartheid schemes and Jim Crow laws have always enjoyed wide popular support- they all have valid anecdotal backing (and scientific backing, if you consider P-hacking valid science), direct society in ways those not targeted by the law find preferable, and have enjoyed wildly popular support amongst the groups not targeted by the law. That's fundamentally what cohort-based law is; society hasn't managed to solve the obvious abuse problems that come with "but I'm too lazy to solve this problem the right way" or "the solution to the problem compatible with human rights is taking too long", because without fail that's what it always becomes.

by qball 5y ago

kelseyfrog 5y ago

Until we get suffrage for minors, banning cigarettes is peanuts.

dougmwne 5y ago

I have a higher social security retirement age than my parents, even though life expectancy is dropping. We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool, and times when it is not or should be unconstitutional.

qball 5y ago
>We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Crucially, however, none of those rules involve criminal or civil penalties (outside of the distinction between who is and is not considered a full member of society; there are no tiers between full members outside of "does qualify as an adult" and "does not qualify"). It's worth noting that the part of the Constitution that deals with this was laid down after the US fought an incredibly destructive 4-year war against itself *to deny itself its own ability to pass cohort-based law*, though it took a good 100 years after that war for the results to be fully incorporated. Of course, the US certainly isn't perfect in this regard, and this can be abused in the other direction ("In its majestic equality the law forbids both rich and poor to sleep beneath bridges...") but "honor what the 14th says" remains the cultural law of the land for very good reason. >Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool Apartheid schemes and Jim Crow laws have always enjoyed wide popular support- they all have valid anecdotal backing (and scientific backing, if you consider P-hacking valid science), direct society in ways those not targeted by the law find preferable, and have enjoyed wildly popular support amongst the groups not targeted by the law. That's fundamentally what cohort-based law is; society hasn't managed to solve the obvious abuse problems that come with "but I'm too lazy to solve this problem the right way" or "the solution to the problem compatible with human rights is taking too long", because without fail that's what it always becomes.