3 ms·

> Ok but who is better than the parents at deciding what's good for the kids? Other people? We seem to be happy for parents to decide a lot of things for their

> Ok but who is better than the parents at deciding what's good for the kids? Other people? We seem to be happy for parents to decide a lot of things for their kids, why not this thing? Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. If kids don't get a vote because they aren't expected to know what's best for themselves at this point, then this vote shouldn't be given to someone else. Especially not in such a large proportion. This is what rights are for, not voting power. To protect and enable parents to decide what is good for their kids, regardless of who votes for what. And yes, for some people like the Turpins, basically almost anyone was better at deciding what was good for the kids. It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Let the parents first prove they have been good (or at least convincing), and let the votes fall in line. If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. Even in your system of greater voting power at a young age, the willingness of 18 year olds to vote in alignment with their parents is the single best test of whether the parents actually did parent well. It is the single best test of whether the parents actually made good decisions for the kids. > Shouldn't they? They have more stake in society. There's more of them! No, they don't. The children do. And once they reach their majority those children can then make their own choices. We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. There are plenty of people who have large networks of those they care for (many of whom are adults, so there would be no transferring of votes). And plenty of people who have almost no one they care for. But when it comes right down to it, our stake is our own, not someone else's. Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others > If you decide to make solar panels and windmills illegal and then take a job in the coal industry, they will tell someone. And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out?

lordnacho 4y ago
> Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. Of course there are parents who don't think about this, but I think it's reasonable that people who have kids by and large think about the future their kids are going to live in. We have to make some sort of assumption about what interests people will consider, and I think this is reasonable. Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? > It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. > If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. I think this a much riskier assumption than what I put forth above, that parents are thinking about the future of their kids. What I would say is good parenting is if the kids give thoughtful reasons to why they're voting for whatever, rather than them voting the same way as me. > We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. I'm not responsible for my adult friends because they're adults. Kids though, you have to do a bunch of stuff in their interest, while assuming you know their interest, aka making a good guess. > Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others They also produce more of society's resources, for the benefit of others. > And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out? Some kind of sanction of course.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  >> Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others > They also produce more of society's resources, for the benefit of others. Not at all.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? Yes. Don't award anyone extra votes based on the kids that they raise. > Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. > > If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. > I think this a much riskier assumption than what I put forth above, This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/parent-child-politics-research-cartoon https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/... > Ojeda and Hatemi found that only two in three of these adult children could properly identify a parent’s party identification with the broad descriptions of Republican, independent, or Democrat. > And of that group, about one in four rejected their parent’s politics. > if a child felt she was supported and connected to her parent, she was more likely to adopt what she thought her parent’s beliefs were. Directly addressing your comment, "that parents are thinking about the future of their kids." > "Parents are especially bad at perceiving their children, especially compared to how children perceive their parents," he said > about two in three children were able to accurately perceive a parent’s party identification. But only 42 percent of parents were able to do the same. A second link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-p... > 7 in 10 currently say they're sticking close to their parents' positions on the ideological spectrum, many will possibly continue the voting tradition of at least one older family member. --- > We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. No, you aren't. Morally you may think that you are, but legally you aren't. You're just responsible for how you raise them. Morally I consider myself responsible for the future of all children, despite not being a parent. Legally, just like you, I am not though. I'm just legally responsible for not abusing other people's kids. Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future?

lordnacho 4y ago

> Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. Of course there are parents who don't think about this, but I think it's reasonable that people who have kids by and large think about the future their kids are going to live in. We have to make some sort of assumption about what interests people will consider, and I think this is reasonable. Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? > It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. > If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. I think this a much riskier assumption than what I put forth above, that parents are thinking about the future of their kids. What I would say is good parenting is if the kids give thoughtful reasons to why they're voting for whatever, rather than them voting the same way as me. > We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. I'm not responsible for my adult friends because they're adults. Kids though, you have to do a bunch of stuff in their interest, while assuming you know their interest, aka making a good guess. > Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others They also produce more of society's resources, for the benefit of others. > And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out? Some kind of sanction of course.

goodpoint 4y ago
>> Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others > They also produce more of society's resources, for the benefit of others. Not at all.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? Yes. Don't award anyone extra votes based on the kids that they raise. > Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. > > If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. > I think this a much riskier assumption than what I put forth above, This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/parent-child-politics-research-cartoon https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/... > Ojeda and Hatemi found that only two in three of these adult children could properly identify a parent’s party identification with the broad descriptions of Republican, independent, or Democrat. > And of that group, about one in four rejected their parent’s politics. > if a child felt she was supported and connected to her parent, she was more likely to adopt what she thought her parent’s beliefs were. Directly addressing your comment, "that parents are thinking about the future of their kids." > "Parents are especially bad at perceiving their children, especially compared to how children perceive their parents," he said > about two in three children were able to accurately perceive a parent’s party identification. But only 42 percent of parents were able to do the same. A second link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-p... > 7 in 10 currently say they're sticking close to their parents' positions on the ideological spectrum, many will possibly continue the voting tradition of at least one older family member. --- > We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. No, you aren't. Morally you may think that you are, but legally you aren't. You're just responsible for how you raise them. Morally I consider myself responsible for the future of all children, despite not being a parent. Legally, just like you, I am not though. I'm just legally responsible for not abusing other people's kids. Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future?