Laws restricting teens should be abolished.

Work: Respect: it just backed up my reasoning, and was not a standalone part. I mentioned respect as it causes poorer work conditions, which, alongside of the lack of trust in the system creates a harmful situation, making the law have positive effects. Complaints: that is what I basically said: teens tend not to complain to the authorities / boards. Let me speak about my personal experiences: a number of times, when there was a problem, which could be solved by some higher authority (which includes anyone with higher responsibilities and action possibilities), they tended not to tell it and rather accepted the problem. This distrust ensures that a high percentage of the young people working would not file a complaint, and as such, the illegalities will not be resolved. Also, a study, which I encountered around a year ago, has shown, that even though even adults usually would/do not report corruption, the percentage among teens is even higher. Trust in the system: it is actually caused by the age (alongside of many other possible factors): it is the time of becoming an adult, and thus, as the 'normal' way of life changes, it is the time of questioning everything. And to illustrate that even when a common, negative phenomenon is caused by a factor only a few times, we do against it, let me give a somewhat harsh example: psychopaths tend to commit crimes, but crimes do not "tend" to be committed by psychopaths (only a small per cent is). However, we still do restrict them, and assign a psychologist to them. That is the case: not every distrust is caused by being a teen, but being a teen causes distrust. Thus, we have to act this way. Education: Requirements: I have never said that P.E. is unimportant, just did not emphasize it - being fit is just as important as being able to handle complex situations. And while you could argue that a mathematician needs only mathematics, a football coach needs only sports, etc., this is untrue. First of all, young people usually are not able to decide which profession they will take. Also, each additional skill contributes, and might turn out helpful - being fit for a scientists is just as useful as being smart for a coach: a lot of situations require either. Finland: indeed they do have a well-working high school system, measured by the competence skills on the PISA test. [link 1] While their different education system looks nice, we have to see that 66% of the Finnish children even continue to universities or colleges, which is the highest rate in the EU [link 2]. Less classes can be true, but it is a question of how is education done, not is education done? Colleges: yes, it is more free. However, we have to see that many of the core skills are developed in high school (others in elementary). This way, it is not necessary for everyone to continue to higher education - even though it is beneficial. Necessities as bad things: my apologies if I was not fully understandable. I considered those necessities, which, while are not needed to survive, society considers necessary. These include rules, regulations, many ethical questions and cultural questions. These are questioned, and often not followed by the teens [link 3]. Tendency shows that, while breaking rules is common, breaking social norms is even more often. As such, if school would not be compulsory, likelihood shows that many teenagers would not continue their education. People: Jobs - he quit college. Gates - he quit university. Both have finished high school. [links 4, 5] Einstein - he has quit school around 120 years ago, back in a very different age. In 1900, in the US (I have not exact figures for Germany), enrollment rates for 5 to 19 year old children was around 50% [link 6]. These 3 people do not disprove that without high school, it is nowadays nearly impossible to become successful - not only that only one of them did not finish high school, who studied over a century ago, it also has to be noted that there are much more successful people, who DID finish even university. Job, prisons: chances are that even an uneducated individual will find a job. Not to mention that while, for example, reading books with complex sentence structures does not help most of the people for their job, it helps them to interpret everyday texts, such as bills. Not to mention that a 2008 study states that 60% of the prison population has difficulties in basic literacy skills. [link 7] Runaway: Levels: so are 12 and 25 year old people. Applying your logic, we can also prove that runaway laws are good. Personal autonomy: while there is truth in this, we also must mention that teens take more risk than an adult in case of unknown risks (which is common in real life). [link 8] While this is necessary, taking too much risk causes harmful consequences. This way, runaway law is preventive. Normal life or murder: that sounds nice, however, the percentage of murder is much less than it seems to be from the media. I have recently heard in the news (on a local, non-English language TV channel), that around 90% of „lost” 14-18 year old children are found, while most of the others are attacked by criminals and not runaway. We also have to see that less people care about "Child ran away but found" than about "Another shocking murder", but still, there are few murders. And again, I have to say: while teens' qualities are helpful, risk-taking is also a problem. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.smithsonianmag.com... http://www.psychologytoday.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://nces.ed.gov... http://www.literacytrust.org.uk..., page 6 http://healthland.time.com...