When attacking elected politicians, remember who it is who elected them.
For philosophic consistency you must then support raising the age of sexual consent, joining the military, getting married, and entering the porn industry to 21.
Nope. That’s exactly my point. I subscribe to no philosophy requiring that these things must, as a matter of natural law, logic, common sense, or other matter of course—without some additional compelling argument—happen at the same age.
Not exactly, so forgive me for the highjack: Parliamentary systems are (slightly) more amenable than our U.S. Congressional system to deal-making and swapping. Say the anti-Union faction makes a deal with the anti-Abortion faction, each giving the other what it most wants in return for what it most wants. The actual majority can be side-stepped.
The situation such as was seen in Israel for many years (and I believe it’s back again now) is another example, where a tiny (two per cent) minority can get everything it wants, if it’s willing to side with one or the other of the larger (49%) minorities. Even though up to 98% of the country doesn’t agree with their demands, the ability to form a government is so important, one (and perhaps both) of the other two parties will grant their most fervent desires.
I don’t claim the Congressional system is immune from this, only that it’s a little harder.
What you describe is really an issue with proportional representation, not a parliamentary system. In the UK (a parliamentary system with FPTP voting), the MPs vote the party line much more stringently than U.S. senators and representatives do. At least historically, the U.S. was sort of an oddball in that legislators acted very much as individuals primarily, and members of a party second (that has slowly been changing, but it’s still more true than it is in most parliamentary systems)
You say this like compromise is a bad thing.
Again - if a coalition can overrule them, then they’re not “the actual majority”, they’re just the biggest. The coalition is “the actual majority” and is just as valid a political entity as any individual party. Don’t like that? Don’t vote for any members of the coalition (something, I think, the Lib Dems in the UK are about to find out after getting in bed with the Tories…)
49%+2%=51%, a majority.
The majority of that majority (excuse the clunky phrase) may not want what the 2% wants, but they do want the coalition. So no, this is not a minority overriding the majority, this is the majority whoring itself out to the minority. The coalition major partner is not being parasitized by the 2%, it’s an active participant in everything. 49% of the 98% have only themselves to blame, if they voted for people who are willing to sell them out for that 2%, rather than suffer a hung parliament and a re-election.
Then please provide a compelling argument that the rights of an adult, as previously mentioned, should all occur at ages other than 18, and indeed not at the same age altogether.
Bear in mind, senseless complexity works against your argument.
Simple answer, it’s the law. Now, you provide evidence of why said laws are wrong.
Well, some forms actually are bad. Damned bad.
Some are bad, but necessary, such as the U.S. Constitution and the 3/5 rule. There wouldn’t have been a Constitution without it. But it’s still mighty fucking bad.
Some are bad, and not necessary, just convenient. Obtaining short term benefits at the expense of long-term harm is one example.
The drinking age/highway funds thing is just another loophole the feds use to wipe their ass with the 10th Amendment. Whether it’s speed limits, seat belt laws, open container laws, or the drinking age, it should be set by the individual states. Issues like these are exactly what the 10th Amendment was written for.
Had it. Rated it a 2 out of 5
Yep, this.
I don’t buy any complexity problem either. We’re handling the complexity just fine.
If you’re saying that there is some compelling reason that all this has to happen at the same age, then you give the reason and support it.
Other countries have drinking ages of 16-18. Also, as we have established, people can join the military at age 18, and alcohol can be beneficial there.
Also, many people start college when they’re 18 and drink anyway. Actually many are already drinking from way before, but why should college freshmen, sophomores, and some juniors not be allowed to drink? Especially when they’re literally in a partying madhouse.
We mark 18 as the age of being able to do nearly anything. Hell, people can buy cigarettes. Why not drinking? What’s so special about drinking that it needs to be set at 21 and as a result unnecessarily getting many 18-20 year-olds handed underage drinking tickets?
Before this son of a bitch Reagan came into power, the drinking age was much lower individually in the states which goes to show that naturally, it was lower.
And Morganstern, you roll your eyes at allowing “teenage drinking”. Bro, I asked why isn’t the drinking age 18? Well I guess 18 and 19 are technically “teenagers” as well, but I wasn’t saying like 16 or 17-year-olds…
I mean, as I said earlier, look at the European countries.
MLDA 21 reduces traffic accidents and fatalities.** 100 of the 102 analyses (98%) in a 2002 meta-study of the legal drinking age and traffic accidents found higher legal drinking ages associated with lower rates of traffic accidents. [19] The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimated that MLDA 21 decreased the number of fatal traffic accidents for 18- to 20-year-olds by 13% and saved approximately 27,052 lives from 1975-2008. [26]*
source
I grew up in Wisconsin which had a culture of drinking. Children could go into bars with their parents and be served. I probably started drinking beer at about 10, maybe a tad younger. No big deal.
The legal age for beer in that state in those days was 18 and for hard liquor, 21. That kind of eased kids into drinking. (Not sure discrimination against hard booze would fly legally these days, but at the time the beer lobby was strong in the state.)
I’ve never had any moving violations nor alcohol related problems of any sort.
That all said, I never encouraged my children to drink. I did let them see me have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner but I never drank much around them. As far as I know two of them drink responsibly and the third doesn’t drink at all.
As to 21 vs. 18, at least we have a shot at letting kids mature three years before letting them legally indulge.
Things were different if you lived by the border. IIRC, Iowa was 19 and Illinois was 21, so if you lived down in the corner, there was a lot of cross border drunk driving teenagers. The only thing worse than a FIB driver, is a drunken FIB driver!
And, as just a counterpoint to your story, a friend of mine was also allowed to drink from an early age (good German heritage - beer for breakfast!) and he had several DWI and a bad accident and was on his way to alcoholism by the time he was 20. He’s OK now - but it might have helped if he was subject to a higher drinking age. Maybe not, too, but who can say.
India has full-on prohibition in some states, and a drinking age of 25 or 30 in some areas. Be happy you don’t live there.
I agree with you, for what it’s worth. (One side benefit of lowering the drinking age would be getting 18-20 year old drinking out in the open, instead of in seedy environments like fraternities).
They still can.
That changed in the 70’s. At 18 one could buy anything. At one time (50’s? 
) The age was set by counties which was ridiculous. 18 year olds would travel to counties where they could get served. Talk about encouraging drunk driving.
If I read the OP correctly, the significant bitch isn’t just the age, it’s the feds sticking their nose into it, which I agree. It’s an issue the individual states should decide, not Uncle Sam.
Ever so often, poor old State’s Rights hobbles its raggedy ass self onstage, shakes its withered fist and shouts “I’m still important!”. The audience is uncomfortable and embarrassed, until someone helps State’s Rights offstage and gets it some oatmeal.
Why does it not surprise me that the country which gave us Prohibition would come up with such an incredibly stupid law as 21 for legal drinking.
The Puritan genes in you people die hard.
Can you imagine an 18-year-old non-puritan with beer goggles on? The sheep would be really nervous.