Youth Rights

Note: I often accidentally say "children" or "teens", instead of minors, so correct this in your head if you catch this mistake. What if, instead of using an AGE of majority, we awarded it by having children prove themselves. Many people would argue that this is too subjective, but could you not have a semi-objective track that the children follow? Basically, what I was think was: 1) Every year give the government gives each minor a very small amount of money (~ $100.) and see if they can save it. The reason that they would need to be given money is that school is, in reality, work, so how else can they get money; they don't have time (maybe some of the lazy one's do, but those who would pass this list of requirements would be studying). Now, this has many problems that people would object to that I am about to address. a) It wouldn't cost much in taxes because ~$100 isn't that big of a deal. b) I understand you could not easily prevent the parents from spending the child's money. Of course, if a parent is stealing their child's money what's the likelihood that child is learning financial responsibility? That would be the least of the child's worries. Also, this already happens to some 16 and 17 y.o.'s in the first place. One thing you could do is give the kids money cards that only kids are allowed to used to prevent this. c) This money could increase exponentially to replicate real world situations. This could possibly help lower-income children afford college. 2) If they save up enough allow them to make more money at some after-school activities. -Now, let's think about the risks taken here. What could go wrong at this point? a) Many would be worried that the kids would get alcohol or drugs, but the truth is that the kids who use drugs ALREADY have easy access to them (they usually steal them or money, how else would a thirteen year old get drugs?) so that wouldn't be any more of a problem than it already is. b) The kids who are mature enough to save up this kind of money don't use drugs or drink alcohol in the first place. Teenage recklessness is heavily, Heavily tied poor financial management. c) The thing is that the reckless kids would have never gotten to the point in which they could have bought anything significant with the money they "saved", or, in reality, spent. As I said, not spending money would help you earn more money later on. Reckless teens would never accumulate this much. This models the adult world. Here is where it gets a little more weird. 3) If the save up a significant amount of money they should be able to work doing something after school to gain a little more money. Many people, I'm sure would think this is crazy, but don't judge it too quickly. What could go wrong at this point? (not rhetorical, please answer this) 4) If a minor can sustain a job like this for long enough (maybe a year or two) and save up enough money, shouldn't they be able to drive? Why should a reckless 16 year old be able to drive and not a mature 15 year old who can behave in class, not break the law, not fail classes, save up money a large amount of money AND keep a mini-"job" as well as pass the driving tests? We could even, at a certain point start to require them to donate a larger and lager portion of their earnings if necessary. 5) If they can do all this shouldn't they be able to get a real job? 6) If a minor, regardless of whether or not all of this is possible, saves up enough money to buy a house, balances their education, obeys the law, behaves, preforms community service, and does not exhibit any major mental disorders (you have to draw a line somewhere [and we do. thats why adults who are violent, vicious, psychopaths are placed in mental institutes]) should they not be able to buy that house. 7) and if they can keep the house in shape for a few months shouldn't they be able to live in it one out of every five days? 8) 1/4 days for another month? 9) 1/2 days for a months? 10) 3/4 days for two weeks? 11) If any person, regardless of their age, can maintain a steady income at a real job, balance their education, save up money, perform community service, obey the law, behave, stay mentally sane, and in general, not exhibit any major reckless behaviors, such as lighting of fireworks inside (if things like fireworks and guns are a big issue just don't let minors buy them, thats not a big deal) and pay taxes on a home they own, but do not live in who are we to say "Sorry, that's not good enough. You have to wait to live alone." 12) If they can maintain a this lifestyle alone long enough why not give them full rights? Isn't this the definition of begin an adult (dont take that literally :P) 13) If they are stilll mature after another period of time we could ive them the rights of a 21 year old. Conclusion: The thing about this method is that they are given small amounts of independence just before receiving small amounts of responsibility they cannot be reckless because they will be able to prove themselves. One major problem with our society is that independence and responsibility are given at the SAME time. The result is that when kids are given responsibility they don't have no idea how to manage it so they behave horribly. This is like trying to learn how to mountain climb on mount everest. People will do stupid things because they are given too much at once. Many people would argue that this is the way our society works because we give rights little-by-little, but this is not valid, despite its seemingly logical point. The issue is that kids behave poorly in small ways so we do not give them any more rights. What I'm about to say is VERY IMPORTANT and is sort of the thesis of this argument: This method, unlike our current method, involves judging minors by their ability to handle a relatively small amount of responsibility exceptionally well (like a person who is unusually mature for their age, or in this method, legal status which has replaced age) as a method to determine if the can handle a relatively more risky responsibility adequately (like a regular, mature person). This means that if the kids can poorly or even adequately handle one responsibility they will not be given more risky responsibilities. What that means is that only the minors who are capable of handling a responsibility exceptionally well will have the opportunity to handle slightly more difficult and risky tasks, but that these children who can preform so well on previous tasks will not behave poorly on such difficult tasks because they have proven themselves to be relatively mature. This is incredibly important because it counters the "Children and teenagers are too immature to be given rights argument because if this is true they will fail this system before they are given enough responsibility to act rashly. If you believe that 14 year olds are to irresponsible drive, then no worries! They won't be mature enough to save up a significant amount of money (~$7,000), keep a job, behave, follow the law,and preform community service in the first place :) Please understand this system is VERY, VERY theoretical. It is more of an example. Also, it wouldn't involve a track system in a line. It would be best to think of this system as a very complex web with multiple ways to gain responsibility. Also, if you are going to comment be honest and say how much of this you read. Please, please do not comment after reading half or the first two lines, regardless of your opinion. Contact me if you want to decrease the amount of time to make your argument, I'm willing to do whatever. Also, it may seem ironic that I set the age limit to 21, but I would like to for the other person to be an adult since I have less experience discussing this idea with them. Thanks :)