Who get double food? ;) one of them should have been money, or healthcare or whatever else you get.

Unrepresented? Bullshit. I 100% REJECT the claim that the citizens under 18 are not represented. BULLSHIT. You, apparently, know nothing about representative government. IF they are unrepresented, then this is the failing of the society as a whole, and an indictment of every voter over the age of 18. So when governemtn programs provide for a child's education, a child's health care, provide protection against parental abuse, etc etc etc, you claim the children are not represented?

Fuck off, seriously. Your arguments are disingenuous at best. Self-centered, self-righteous nonsense.

You want allllll the benefit, none of the risk.

Fine, if governments don't represent children, and 18 year olds that have not yet voted should not go to war, then EVERY government school should be immediately closed. ALL government programs that feed and provide health services to children should be immediately ended, and the finances supporting those program returned to the adults.

You little whiny kiddies that think you are unrepresented must have absolute worthless shit for parents.

Krillin, dont forget to breath, take it easy its just people over the internet.

@krellin"Gtlblx -- "you are not represented" Then you know *nothing* about how a representative government works. Al;l the more reason you should be DISALLOWED from voting."
You are represented by a government chosen by a fair election you were allowed to vote in.

"You know, sometimes the government addresses topics that were never even mentioned during an election cycle...does that mean those decisions they make should not be valid? You are represented by your parents, or your care-takers, who voted for representatives on your behalf."
My parents voting does not give me representation. If it did my parents votes should have more weight than those of childless adults.


"If you think you are not represented, then I suggest you empty your savings and give all you can back to the government that provides the infrastructure that has kept your healthy, well-fed ass alive up to the age of 18."
I am represented, because I have voted. I think the government should require a period of compulsory service from its citizens, but don't think that service should be military by default, and don't think anybody should be required to risk their lives or kill to defend something are not allowed to influence.

"So we are at war! But we have to leave a large part of the young and capable men behind because they havn`t voted yet."
Don't restrict yourself to men. Instantly you have nearly doubled your fighting force. What would be the lowest age limit for acceptance to your child solider troop?

"Solution: set the voting age so that you can cast a vote when you are born because hey, you arn`t represented at that time!"
Infants are not required to fight for their country. If you don't want to lower the voting age, keep it at 18 and raise the age of military service to the 22 you calculated earlier.

"And i`ll say it again, physically being able to wage a war does not mean you are mentally capable of voting. And crying that something bad happend to you and you havn`t voted yet is a perfect example of hypocrisie since you get benefits before you vote from the goverment as well."
Being physically able to wage war does not mean you are mentally capable of doing it.The standards for mental maturity of people sent to war should be at least as high as allowing them to vote.

@krellin So if the government benefits a person, by your definition that person is represented?

I am not arguing that people generally don't owe anything to their country by the time they are 18, just that they should be allowed to participate in the decision making before they are required to kill or die for it.

And women should be required to defend it no less than men.

Krediax, just because I disagree with you and think you are a typical liberal, whiny youth, doesn't mean I am angry or whatever demented idea you have. I may despise your attitude, but it is par for the course for liberal youth to be "everything is about ME". I pity you more than I am angry. Oh, I may be angry conceptually that you are so poorly educated, that you understanding of the world around you is so piss poor.

But am I personally angry? No....but I don't mind calling a spade a spade, and perhaps becuase you youth are so emotionally soft and spoiled you just aren't used to someone laying the truth on you, and calling you out for the self-righteous, self-centered spoiled brats you are.

"I am represented, because I have voted. I think the government should require a period of compulsory service from its citizens, but don't think that service should be military by default, and don't think anybody should be required to risk their lives or kill to defend something are not allowed to influence.

Not responding to what krellin said. But good for you!

"Don't restrict yourself to men. Instantly you have nearly doubled your fighting force.
What would be the lowest age limit for acceptance to your child solider troop?"

So? Still you are leaving A LOT of people behind. And what if somebody never voted? can never be drafted?

"Infants are not required to fight for their country. If you don't want to lower the voting age, keep it at 18 and raise the age of military service to the 22 you calculated earlier.`
But infants do get food/healthcare etc. the age is at 17 because aperently you are then physically fit to server. so no i dont want to raise it.

"Being physically able to wage war does not mean you are mentally capable of doing it.The standards for mental maturity of people sent to war should be at least as high as allowing them to vote."

And thats why you go trough a lot of test to test if you are mentally capable.
Claiming that the mental maturity shoudl be equal for voting and fighting is just plain stupid, because the foot soldier does not need to think about the reprecussions (or however you spell it) of their actions they need to follow orders, thats how the military works.

But again no answer to why a person should be able to get the benefits without voting but nothing of the disadvantages basicly:

"Fine, if governments don't represent children, and 18 year olds that have not yet voted should not go to war, then EVERY government school should be immediately closed. ALL government programs that feed and provide health services to children should be immediately ended, and the finances supporting those program returned to the adults."

subsitute childern with anybody under the 18 and voila you got your logic only looked at the benefits.

I was/am agreeing with you krellin ;)

Gtlblx -- I can equally make the argument that you should notbe allowed the right to vote UNTIL you have taken up arms in defense of your nation, and actually have earned the right to have a say in how it is run. Because before you have laid your life on the line, and before you have had the privileged to pay taxes, you are nothing but a LEECH on society, and in my opinion I can argue that you have *aero* right to cast a vote that may impact MY life -- my life, that of an adult that has put far more into this society (and into supporting your youthful, arrogant self) than you have given to me.

At the very least, if you think you should not have to lay down your life in arms at 18 without yet voting, then becuase I have lived and participate in society much longer than you, I demand that my vote count significantly MORE than yours.

If you want to play *childish* mental games about who has/should have what rights at what time based upon their level of participation, let's go for it. I'll have your vote when cast diminished to nothing, and my elder voting block will have you sweeping our streets until we deem you worthy to do anything else.

Yeah, I was going to indicate who I'm responding to to make it easier to follow, but somewhere along the line forgot.

"So? Still you are leaving A LOT of people behind. And what if somebody never voted? can never be drafted?"
If they have had the opportunity to vote they have had it regardless to whether they used it.

"But infants do get food/healthcare etc. the age is at 17 because aperently you are then physically fit to server. so no i dont want to raise it."
Being capable of holding a pen does not make you fit to vote, likewise being capable of shooting does not make you fit to kill.

"And thats why you go trough a lot of test to test if you are mentally capable.
Claiming that the mental maturity shoudl be equal for voting and fighting is just plain stupid, because the foot soldier does not need to think about the reprecussions (or however you spell it) of their actions they need to follow orders, thats how the military works."
Soldiers being capable of no more than following orders is what leads to them shooting peaceful protesters and committing genocide.

"Fine, if governments don't represent children, and 18 year olds that have not yet voted should not go to war, then EVERY government school should be immediately closed. ALL government programs that feed and provide health services to children should be immediately ended, and the finances supporting those program returned to the adults."
These things benefit the government too. There are ways to pay back your dept to society that aren't killing.

@krellin: I could support the idea of giving weight to votes based on the impact the voter has had in principle, but in practice I think there would be too much disagreement on what benefits society and how much.
Worry not, I highly doubt my votes will have any impact on your life, just like your precious tax money has not benefited me.

This is getting harder to answer to ;)
"If they have had the opportunity to vote they have had it regardless to whether they used it." And to quote myself: "So? Still you are leaving A LOT of people behind."

"Being capable of holding a pen does not make you fit to vote, likewise being capable of shooting does not make you fit to kill."
Ohw come on thats just bull shit, i was going to ignore it but... come on.

"Soldiers being capable of no more than following orders is what leads to them shooting peaceful protesters and committing genocide. "
And thats why the army cant do shit. Its all done by the police.

"These things benefit the government too. There are ways to pay back your dept to society that aren't killing."
Really? how does giving you healtcare/money/food etc benefits the goverment.
Besides fighting for your countries freedom benefits the people too. they dont get to live under a dictatorship.

I am pretty sure the comment krellin made about his vote being worth more was not serious but just to point out that your logic is wrong.

My point is not that I don't think I'm not privileged, that I'm done wrong or anything, I'm discussing a principal. The government is supposed to benefit the people, not the other way around. I'm talking about what should in my opinion perhaps be basic rights. Arguing that my government is allowed to take away a basic right in return for a privilege is bullshit, unless I choose to exchange the right for the privilege myself.
That's the thing I want to discuss: if you've done nothing wrong, should it be possible to force you to get shot to pieces simply because you're born as a boy in a country that chooses to force you to get shot to pieces?

Also, I seem to be the only one here not set in my ways. I'm simply interested in opinions. Since most people argue the other way, I argue this way, to keep the discussion going.

"And thats why the army cant do shit. Its all done by the police."
Ever heard of the Kent State shootings? Besides that's just for the stuff a military might do back home. If you go on the offense that doesn't apply.

"Really? how does giving you healtcare/money/food etc benefits the goverment."
If a child gets no polio vaccination he or she is less likely to be a productive taxpayer in the future. Herd immunity will benefit everyone, not just those who couldn't pay for the care themselves. Healthy and well fed children will perform better in school and become better informed voters. Need I go on?

"Besides fighting for your countries freedom benefits the people too. they dont get to live under a dictatorship."
With claims of subsidized food and healthcare being representation flying around I'm a bit hazy on how you would define a dictatorship. I agree that training to defend your country benefits it, and would respect volunteers for it, like I do the volunteer fire department.
That does not make conscription good. If my country faced a real external military threat I would support everyone having to serve in whatever capacity they can. Clearly that is not the case if you have conscription only for men.

Is a citizen of your country more likely to die of a treatable medical condition he or she cannot afford to have treated, or by an invaders bullet? Why should she rather have the government force an 18 year old to learn how to shoot and then stand ready to repel an invading dictatorship than force a doctor to treat her?