When I learned the sad news that PseudoCyants had died, I wrote a comment as many did.  He was a giant in the Cafe.  Generous in giving his time and insights, scrupulously fair and always thoughtful, his voice is missed.  I suggested that those of us who loved Ken's work could honor it by writing on the document which included his favorite quote, DISSERTATION ON FIRST PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT.  Yup, I assigned homework, as Seashell noted.  She speculated that Ken was somewhere "loving this"...and I hope so. 

Anyhow, having assigned homework, I had better go into practicing mode as well as preaching mode, hence this piece I'm calling part of a Festschrift for Peudocyants.  I think this would be a suitable tribute to a great blogger.  I'm not suggesting anything too scholarly here, though I have to confess a love of for the fancy word--and a festival of writing certainly is appropriate.  What I'm doing, and what I hope others will do is take some idea in the Dissertation on  first principles and run with it, stream of consciousness fashion.  I don't feel obligated to wind up where Paine wound up, or where Ken would have wound up if he wrote on it, but just to muse and meditate a bit.  Here's the passage behind the title.

The rights of minors are as sacred as the rights of the aged. The difference is altogether in the different age of the two parties, and nothing in the nature of the rights; the rights are the same rights; and are to be preserved inviolate for the inheritance of the minors when they shall come of age. During the minority of minors their rights are under the sacred guardianship of the aged. The minor cannot surrender them; the guardian cannot dispossess him; consequently, the aged part of a nation, who are the law-makers for the time being, and who, in the march of life are but a few years ahead of those who are yet minors, and to whom they must shortly give place, have not and cannot have the right to make a law to set up and establish hereditary government, or, to speak more distinctly, an hereditary succession of governors; because it is an attempt to deprive every minor in the nation, at the time such a law is made, of his inheritance of rights when he shall come of age, and to subjugate him to a system of government to which, during his minority, he could neither consent nor object.

I begin with a confession.  In 1960 I wore a button which said "If I were 21 I'd vote for Nixon".  The 26th Amendment wouldn't be ratified for another 17 years. By then I had turned twenty-one and then some, so in my case the amendment was moot.  Some might argue that the button I wore in 1960 is proof positive that eighteen-year-olds are too immature to cast wise ballots. to which I respond it was over 21-year-olds who elected tricky Dick.

But what I'm really getting at here is the general arbitrary nature of the age qualification itself.  Why 18?  In Europe, the Voting Age is going down.  It seems reasonable to allow voting at 16--voting isn't more dangerous than driving, is it?  Or maybe even 15.  One can get a learner's permit at 15.  In classical times, the playwright Euripides had Theseus laud the relationship between democracy and the young.

Again, where the people are absolute rulers of the land, they rejoice in having reserve of youthful citizens, while a king counts this a hostile element, and strives to slay the leading men, all such as he deems discreet, for he feareth for his power. How then can a city remain stable, where one cuts short all enterprise and mows down the young like meadow-flowers in spring-time? What boots it to acquire wealth and livelihood for children, merely to add to the tyrant's substance by one's toil?

We saw this in the Green Revolution in Iran:


Iran, has raised its voting age to 18.

But suppose that our teenagers could protect their own interests instead of relying entirely on the "aged" guardians to protect them in their names.  I can't predict what would happen:  but I suspect that attempts to cut Pell Grants and other forms of access to higher education would meet powerful new adversaries.  I also suspect that it would be more difficult for California's Assembly to jack up tuition and reduce the budget for the State College and University system which used to be the envy of all.

But what I would hope is that lowering the voting age would increase civic engagement among the young.  People turning 18 in November 2012 won't get to exercise their Presidential suffrage until they're 22.  Paine is sensitive to the movement of time...we're less so, I think.  Moreover--it would bring the teaching of civic responsibility (civics, modern problems, the names change from state to state) into synch with the practice of civic responsibility.  No more learning about voting--oops you have to wait four years to practice what you've learned.  No wonder the young participate less.

So let's protect the rights of minors by giving more of them the tools to protect their own rights. 

For PseudoCyants, with affection,

Amike