I don’t want to get into an argument about this issue, but the definition you cited does not directly support the contention that it was blackmail.
Generally speaking, the definitions call it the extraction of something (usually money) by threat, and many of the definitions specify threat of force or physical harm. I believe that “blackmail” strongly implicates that there is a threat of some physical harm or other illegal coersion going on. The federal government did not coerce by threat of physical harm or other means of illegal coersion. Additionally, “blackmail” implies that what you’re being forced to do is (1) (financially) harmful to you and (2) exclusively (financially) beneficial to the blackmailer.
The law merely states that in order for a state to be eligible for highway funds, it must set the drinking age at 21. The conclusion that this is a “threat” of some illegal coercive nature is your opinion. It is not a fact.
No, it won’t be a dirty fight, and I’m not the original user of the word, but rather a defedant of its use. I see, though, that you’re not ignorant of the word “blackmail” and that you merely have political objections to its use. So, okay, you can call it something besides blackmail if you want. It’s hard to think of a good word for what it is, though. Maybe a coercive bribe? “Hey, we’ll return your grandmother, but only if you bribe us to do so!”
States do one thing. Federal government wants another thing. They’re threatened with a penalty if they don’t comply. They comply against their collective will. They would not have complied had the threat not been made.
You have money. Kidnappers want your money. You’re threatened with a penalty if you don’t comply (they’ll hurt granny). You comply against your will. You would not have complied had the threat not been made.
One and one makes two. The weights on each side of the balance match. Half a dozen of one and six of the other. If it weighs as much as a duck then she’s a witch. Oh, no, wait – ignore that last one.
I want to keep my money. The shopkeeper with the cigarettes wants money. The shopkeeper threatens me with the withholding of cigarettes if I don’t comply (by handing over my money). I comply against my will (by paying for the cigarettes). I would not have complied had the threat not been made (I’d have taken the cigarettes and kept my money).
I want my paycheck. My boss wants me to produce work. My boss threatens me with the withholding of my paycheck if I don’t comply. I comply against my will. I would not have complied had teh threat not been made (I would have collected my paycheck and spent the day playing video games).
In the U.S., the individual states set their own laws on such matters (notwithstanding the Federal blackmail cited above).
Here in Montana, here’s how it would work. You are underage, and accompanied by a companion who is 21 or over. You go into the restaurant, and your companion orders two drinks. When they arrive, he gives you one.
You can be cited for “MIP” (Minor In Possession). At least in this town, that means you’ll be fined and your name will appear in the newspaper.
Your companion can be fined for purchasing liquor for a minor.
The waiter and the restaurant can be fined as well, unless the waiter can demonstrate that he thought both drinks were for your companion and that he never saw you drink one. If there are multiple offences, the restaurant will lose its liquor license.
LOL – good counterpoints. But those are business relationships to each others’ mutual satisfaction – not extortion. The federal government doesn’t have a true national interest in seat belts, drinking ages, or speed limits, or it would be a federal power and there would have to be no blackmail – it would simply dictate the speed limits, drinking ages, and seats belts, rather than extorting actions by the state versus the threat of a real loss.
Your grandma does have an expectation of roaming free, and you have the expectation that she can do so. States do have the expectation that they have all rights reserved to them not given to the federal government by the Constitution. You don’t have the expectation of a free pack of smokes (unless you have enough Marlboro points). You don’t have an expectation of a paycheck without having earned it. (Well, maybe you do :))
Okay, I’ll give a point – I’ve subtley moved away from the word “blackmail” to the use of “extortion.” I’m not admitting that “blackmail” is wrong (the use of the word, not the concept), but it does have dramatic implications you seem to reject.
As I said, Balthisar, I’m not going to get into this and I’m not going to offer counter-arguments. My point is merely this – regardless of the merit of your arguments, they amount to nothing more than opinion, not established fact. The only established fact is that the courts have ruled that this action by the federal government is perfectly legal, which means you can’t say with a straight face that either blackmail (by threat of revealing information) or extortion (by threat of force) is established as a matter of fact.
My college (which is located in NY), offers a classand Beers of the World where you learn about brewing practices, and well, sample beer from around the world. So at least one school does do this. The college also offers a similar course on wine.
In Australia, a person under 18 is allowed to drink alcohol in a private dwelling, I think. But, a person under 18 can’t drink alcohol in public, regardless of who they’re with or what they’re doing.
