I am sure that you have heard this argument to end legal age before the present, but I wish to see your opinions on this topic and whether it is a sound idea. This proposition is basically where the legal rights of an individual are based on that individual's test performance in separate areas rather than the legal age of someone. The legal age can never be objectively set because there is nothing universal about when someone should be able to drive, when someone should be able to utilize a gun, etc. Basically, it is subjective. However, if legal rights are determined by whether an individual passes a test to show that they are capable enough of using those legal rights, then it would end the case of subjectivity, contest of whether the legal age should be raised, abuse of the incapable, and oppression of a genius.
The system for obtaining legal rights would simply be where the individual receives a handbook from the government to study on the specific topic on driving, the constitutional laws, marriage, etc. and they take a test to show that they know the subject material. All material on the test would have to have been in the handbook. In this way, everything is fair, balanced, and objective -- it just depends on whether the individual is capable or not. It would then not be able to be abused by any individual and it would also give more freedom to those that are a genius, or are at least more deserving of those legal rights at a younger legal age. Basically, we won't have 18 year old drivers that can't drive for anything, and we could have 15 year old geniuses that could legally pursue their own dreams without any halting by their parents, that could be more responsible on the roads than many others older than them, etc.
What are your thoughts?
The system for obtaining legal rights would simply be where the individual receives a handbook from the government to study on the specific topic on driving, the constitutional laws, marriage, etc. and they take a test to show that they know the subject material. All material on the test would have to have been in the handbook. In this way, everything is fair, balanced, and objective -- it just depends on whether the individual is capable or not. It would then not be able to be abused by any individual and it would also give more freedom to those that are a genius, or are at least more deserving of those legal rights at a younger legal age. Basically, we won't have 18 year old drivers that can't drive for anything, and we could have 15 year old geniuses that could legally pursue their own dreams without any halting by their parents, that could be more responsible on the roads than many others older than them, etc.
What are your thoughts?
Last edited: