Age of Majority

[EqualityandFreedom]

What do you believe the age of majority (age at which someone is legally an adult) within a society be?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

What do you believe the age of majority (age at which someone is legally an adult) within a society be?

For what? It's kind of arbitrary to begin with. At what point are we no longer jutsified in babysitting people. When they tell us they don't want to do something? That doesn't seem sufficient. Here are my guesses.

Voting: 1 day old
Drinking: When majority of physical growth is done, according to a medical professional. Case by case basis.
Driving: When you can pass the test.
Smoking: Growth issue, again.
Sex: Tough case. Let the sexologists figure it out.

What else is there? A lot of the financial stuff won't be relevant under communism.

[F9]

Over 9000!
There is no need of such thing, and it offers nothing..

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Over 9000!
There is no need of such thing, and it offers nothing..

Isn't telling a 10 year old he can't use heroin beneficial to society? What makes us confident that we will present correct information to children?

I know there are likely some parents who tell their children smoking is fine because they don't want to see themeselves as acting unethically or improperly.

When this 10 year old thinks it's ok to start smoking cigarettes and his parents are willing to give him a pack, we should do nothing? Is that really the kind of society we want? One that sacrifices the children born to unintelligent and ignorant parents "for the greater good of freedom."

I think we clearly have to intervene on behalf of people who are doing really stupid things at ages where they are biologically predispositioned to making rash decisions.

[Demogorgon]

Age of majority is quite vague. I would set different ages for different things. I voted 16, as at that age someone should be able to take on their full adult rights, but certain rights normally regarded as "adult" should granted before that age.

[F9]

Isn't telling a 10 year old he can't use heroin beneficial to society? What makes us confident that we will present correct information to children?

Nothing guarantee you that our words not to use are gonna be accepted by the kid, but in the same time nothing guarantee you that s/he wont take heroin(or something else).I can almost say that the "illegal" is always more attractive...especially for immature people.
So the point is taken, if someone wants something in such a society(im talking about communist society) its not and the easiest thing to stop him/her.
The best thing parents have and can do is inform people.
Beside i dont think heroin would be necassary beside maybe for medical reasons?Who would spend his/her time produce something like that?No one will earn money from that.Drug dealers are really based on the black market anymore..


I know there are likely some parents who tell their children smoking is fine because they don't want to see themeselves as acting unethically or improperly.

What?I think i missed the point to that.Whats the "connection"?


When this 10 year old thinks it's ok to start smoking cigarettes and his parents are willing to give him a pack, we should do nothing? Is that really the kind of society we want? One that sacrifices the children born to unintelligent and ignorant parents "for the greater good of freedom."

I dont think you can stop the kids parents, but this think sounds not really hard to happen but sounds out of (my at least) logic.Smokers know that they dont do good with tobacco.I dont think any parent will hand to his/her kid pack of cigarettes, in such age.
And why would the kid think of such thing?Why do people start smoking nowadays?Most people i know started it because it looked cool...
Im quite sure that such society can inform its childrens, on pros and cons to anything, and yes even a 10 year old can understand them.(Anw even now a 10 year old sounds unlikely to think starting smoking).
But yes freedom is the "greater good".


I think we clearly have to intervene on behalf of people who are doing really stupid things at ages where they are biologically predispositioned to making rash decisions.

If we will come to the time we have to intevene then its too late.If someone holds a ciggarette and thinks to smoke it or not and you get it from his/her mouth at the moment gets it lighted be sure that the only thing you have managed is to make his/her interest bigger to that think.
Learn them from before whats going on, interfering later sadly(in most cases) dont have results.

And no setting a general "age of majority" is going against anything such community supports and against what humans are..We are different, we cant be all the same, that would be fucking boring..So one set age limit its pretty stupid imo.

Fuserg9:star:

[Manzil]

Ban everything. Then, when you're smart enough to do it anyway without being caught, you're old enough. ;)

The problem with defining legal majority is it'll either be arbitrary, and result in injustices, or subjective, resulting in, er, injustices. Overall it seems to be one of those issues where a fair bit of common sense (particularly about whether and when to look the other way) is important. Much like traffic laws, however, I imagine that peer pressure and social norms are much more influential than statute books. We can't look to the government to solve issues of personal development. Better too much freedom than not enough.

[AnthArmo]

Back on topic, the question really is kind of vague.

certain things, like the right to vote, right to minimum wage pay, right to change one's name and select were one can live, should be available from birth.

Kids should be able to drive whenever they can pass a drivers test.

Overall, its kind of stupid to arbitrarily select one age and say that everyone past it is an adult, it ignores how people individually grow and learn.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Nothing guarantee you that our words not to use are gonna be accepted by the kid, but in the same time nothing guarantee you that s/he wont take heroin(or something else).I can almost say that the "illegal" is always more attractive...especially for immature people.
So the point is taken, if someone wants something in such a society(im talking about communist society) its not and the easiest thing to stop him/her.
The best thing parents have and can do is inform people.
Beside i dont think heroin would be necassary beside maybe for medical reasons?Who would spend his/her time produce something like that?No one will earn money from that.Drug dealers are really based on the black market anymore..

What?I think i missed the point to that.Whats the "connection"?


I dont think you can stop the kids parents, but this think sounds not really hard to happen but sounds out of (my at least) logic.Smokers know that they dont do good with tobacco.I dont think any parent will hand to his/her kid pack of cigarettes, in such age.
And why would the kid think of such thing?Why do people start smoking nowadays?Most people i know started it because it looked cool...
Im quite sure that such society can inform its childrens, on pros and cons to anything, and yes even a 10 year old can understand them.(Anw even now a 10 year old sounds unlikely to think starting smoking).
But yes freedom is the "greater good".



If we will come to the time we have to intevene then its too late.If someone holds a ciggarette and thinks to smoke it or not and you get it from his/her mouth at the moment gets it lighted be sure that the only thing you have managed is to make his/her interest bigger to that think.
Learn them from before whats going on, interfering later sadly(in most cases) dont have results.

And no setting a general "age of majority" is going against anything such community supports and against what humans are..We are different, we cant be all the same, that would be fucking boring..So one set age limit its pretty stupid imo.

Fuserg9:star:



That is true. I just think that the capacity to act post-facto, perhaps not because something is "illegal," should be allowed. If I had a child, I wouldn't want to be forced to allow them to do heroin when I could easily stop them.

I'd like to think information and common sense would prevail against drug "abuse" (not necessarily usage). However, isn't that information widely available now? If it's just "conditions" making people turn to drugs, then I agree. Making things illegal or coercion won't be necessary. If we're wrong, though, we have a problem.

The connection was that parents won't always educated their children properly on certain issues and the community needs some way to protect children from improper parenting or choices that result post-facto from improper parenting (such as a decision to start a drug habit).

I knew children growing up who received cigarettes from their parents at a young age. I'm not sure what's preventing that from happening under communism.

Intervention against drug use has been shown to work in some cases. For instance, rehabilitation centers can work when legally imposed. So can legal surveillance and other methods.

I don't think you can make every problem subservient to protecting freedoms. Sometimes a little freedom is worth the long-term gains of restricting people. I think people will make good decisions given the right information being available. However, I also think it's perhaps too idealistic to assume they always will.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic. I just know I, and most people, wouldn't let a family member voluntarily use drugs if it was noticeably harmful to the person. I think this common viewpoint would lead to some sort of method of harm reduction.

Perhaps widespread information and protecting freedom is the largest harm reduction. I don't see how it guarantees that a certain minority of people make decent choices, though.

[Module]

How can you vote when you're 1 day old? You can't even comprehend what voting is, let alone have an understanding of the options.
I would say one should register to vote at whatever age they feel they want to. I'm not sure how that would pan out in practice but I don't see the value of a specific age limit, and I don't see that anybody should be denied the right to participate in something that effects them, so ...

[Invariance]

Old enough to speak, old enough to give an opinion, old enough to be heard.

[Nils T.]

No age.

[yuon]

Considering there are already many "ages" for different things. In some places you can "legally" have sex from 14, but can't drive 'till you are 16, and drink or smoke until you are 18.

How about, no laws, no legal system, just anarchy? We don't need to have a system where kids are forbidden to do something, when we are aiming for a society where all are free to be free.

We want to encourage people to become the best they can be, and I, personally, don't think you do that by making laws for people. Especially not just because they are under some arbitrary age.

I do think that for the case of three year olds, they shouldn't be allowed to scoff three packets of lollies in one sitting, and the drugs should be kept out of their reach, but to say that they can't drive? What is the purpose in that?

When they can drive, let them. In a future free society, we don't have to worry about such strange antiquated concepts as the "age of majority".

[Button]

The answer is simple: when one becomes a productive and labour-producing member of workforce, notwithstanding physical disabilities.

I'm 29 and still a student, have been my whole life. Do I deserve a vote? LOL I'd love to say yes, but not really. The last thing any society with any hope of long term survival needs is to (unless we're raising Spartans) validate the whims of those who do not (not to be confused with cannot) give of their labour.

[Chambered Word]

Old enough to speak, old enough to give an opinion, old enough to be heard.

Oh come on. When I was 5 years old, I could speak. I also thought communism was a system where you invaded and took over other countries. It wasn't easy to think for myself.

Real great opinion I was able to form, eh.

Also, I don't mind if you lol at that.

As for the OP's issue, 18 is really the best option in my opinion. I'm pretty sure everyone is sexually developed by the age of 18. The brain itself doesn't fully develop until 21 I think, which is a case to increase the legal drinking age (seeing as it can still cause damage while the brain is developing).

Some people can't mentally be considered adults by the age of 60 though, but that's society's problem, not that of the soviet/state/insane Stalinist dictatorship, etc.

[Button]

Oh come on. When I was 5 years old, I could speak. I also thought communism was a system where you invaded and took over other countries. It wasn't easy to think for myself.
Same here, neoliberal parents fixed that...hell, when I was that young I tried to be even more conservative just to please them.

As for the OP's issue, 18 is really the best option in my opinion. I'm pretty sure everyone is sexually developed by the age of 18. The brain itself doesn't fully develop until 21 I think, which is a case to increase the legal drinking age (seeing as it can still cause damage while the brain is developing).

Some people can't mentally be considered adults by the age of 60 though, but that's society's problem, not that of the soviet/state/insane Stalinist dictatorship, etc.
If we're talking cognitive abilities, we mature at around 10-13 years of age in both sexes (i.e. its why IQ tests given to adults are useless and why the MENSA crowd are pathetic human beings). We would need an awful lot of social engineering and at least a generation or two here in the West before I would ever trust a North American teenager with a vote of anykind. They've done nothing but prove themselves manipulatable and in ever increasing degrees.

[Invariance]

Oh come on. When I was 5 years old, I could speak.But I hope you could speak much earlier than that.


As for the OP's issue, 18 is really the best option in my opinion. I'm pretty sure everyone is sexually developed by the age of 18. Oh, can I lol at this? So you think that someone's right to participate in society is determined at the age at which they are sexually developed (one wonders how that is related at all to a person's capacity to form an opinion on whatever) ? :blink: (Where 18 wouldn't be correct by the way - female's sexual development can begin as young as 9-10 typically finish by 17 - and let's not forget menopause at around 45-55 - when does sexual development end and how is it at all relevant to someone's position in society?).


The brain itself doesn't fully develop until 21 I think, which is a case to increase the legal drinking age (seeing as it can still cause damage while the brain is developing).Er, whether or not someone should be able to drink alcohol is a social not a biological question. But well done, you have a position which is more socially restrictive than most conservatives.


Some people can't mentally be considered adults by the age of 60 though, but that's society's problem, not that of the soviet/state/insane Stalinist dictatorship, etc.No idea why you mentioned an 'insane Stalinist dictatorship' - probably a mechanism of posting on revleft. Why can't (some) people mentally be considered adults by the age of 60? And if that is the case why the hell should we follow your criteria - which would preclude a proportion of the population?! And yes, Soviets or whatever administration body you wish to call it aren't 'separate' from society but are part of society, and hopefully they would argue for maximum bodily autonomy.


The answer is simple: when one becomes a productive and labour-producing member of workforce, notwithstanding physical disabilities.

I'm 29 and still a student, have been my whole life. Do I deserve a vote? LOL I'd love to say yes, but not really. The last thing any society with any hope of long term survival needs is to (unless we're raising Spartans) validate the whims of those who do not (not to be confused with cannot) give of their labour. Workerist nonsense. The working class certainly has a pivitol role in society, but that's because we understand class relations and the role of the working class in that. It is not because there is any inate goodness in working (on the contrary, that is the so-called Protestant work ethic - a bourgeoisie standard which emphasizes hard work as a sign of a person's individual worth). Firstly, there is the problem of whom exactly is a productive member of society - if you're using the Marxist definition(s) you have precluded quite a large proportion of the economy if you take it as the people whom directly contribute to capital, at least in the West. Your argument is just as odd, but on an opposing spectrum, as the person's above - why should someone's capacity be put on the footing of what they contribute to society? That's totally irrelevant. Communism is about the liberation of humanity as a whole, not forming political institutions which would be more exclusive than even the current ones.

[TC]

every argument of the type 'we can't allow people of x years of age to do y because they will tend to make the wrong/self-destructive choices while doing y, is also going to be applicable to large numbers of people of x+z years of age, where x+z equals the age you think the age of majority should be.

All of these arguments are incoherent. The fact is that there is no argument that justifies age discrimination but we have such impulsively paternalistic urges to control children that we feel a need to do so and rationalize our impulses...the assumption that these impulses are rational however, is just false. they're not. get over it.


Children should be able to do everything without exception that adults can do. many of them will hurt or evil kill themselves. many of them will make stupid choices that fuck up their lives. The same is of course true of allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices and live the lives they want to live: if we recognize that denying someone the power to control their own decisions is tantamount to stripping them of their dignity and equality and that these are things more valuable than the safety of being rendered incapable of choice and risk...then there is no analytic reason why the argument applies to adults but not children.

Similarly arguing that some adults are incompetent but children are more often incompetent and 'you have to draw the line somewhere' and 'any point you pick will be both over and underinclusive' while more coherent than a simple stupid 'children aren't developed enough to decide x until they reach y years old' is also faulty because age is just one of many metrics which could be statistically coorrelated to people's choices...so would class, gender, race, old age rather than young age, geographic background, education, measures of intelligence, etc...

we recognize that the mere fact that one can make some stiatical predictions about someone's level of relative competence for certain tasks according to their demographics does not justify discrimination...in any other area except young age.


So what makes young people 'special?'

Because they're remarkably powerless, so much so that they don't have the means to introduce into the political discourse a debate on their inferior status or even, generally, articulate it and problematize it themselves. They have largely adopted the ideology of their oppressor, just as many oppressed groups do when their oppression is so overwhelming as to prevent political conciousness.

[Button]

Workerist nonsense. The working class certainly has a pivitol role in society, but that's because we understand class relations and the role of the working class in that. It is not because there is any inate goodness in working (on the contrary, that is the so-called Protestant work ethic - a bourgeoisie standard which emphasizes hard work as a sign of a person's individual worth).
Full valued labour is freedom. Labour is what not only drives consumption, but what allows a given society to function and is further one's inherent duty to produce for the benefit of all who are able and not to produce their own.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Children should be able to do everything without exception that adults can do. many of them will hurt or evil kill themselves. many of them will make stupid choices that fuck up their lives. The same is of course true of allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices and live the lives they want to live: if we recognize that denying someone the power to control their own decisions is tantamount to stripping them of their dignity and equality and that these are things more valuable than the safety of being rendered incapable of choice and risk...then there is no analytic reason why the argument applies to adults but not children.


That's very true actually. Hell, there's adults out there that make worse choices than many children. Of course these choices usually result in them going to prison, injuring, or killing themselves. Same thing would happen with children if we allowed them to make decisions for themselves, but there would still be those who make good decisions. There's many people who learn how to drive before they're sixteen. Should they be required to wait a few extra years when they already have the ability? No. Same thing goes for voting too. Are they trying to keep children from voting because they're uninformed? I think this is a bit ridiculous you have to wait until you're 18. Many people begin to get interested in politics while in their teens, but can't really do much because the Bourgeois governments say so. Many of these people are often more informed than their adult counterparts who are voting. Allowing more informed votes would be a better representation of what the population really wants(not that much changes in bourgeois democracy anyway, but that's not the point). Then there's the question of drugs and alcohol. Why not take away an age for that? Most people nowadays begin drinking at a young age anyway so will do it regardless.

[yuon]

I think that TC makes some very good points in her post above. I'm not sure I 100% agree that children should be able to do whatever they like, because I know that three year olds aren't as mentally developed as 13 year olds (in the vast majority of cases).

As such, I think that some restrictions on three year olds are required, even if they can talk. It might simply be preventing them from getting to the lollies by locking them behind a door. Or, making sure their teeth are brushed, regardless of whether they like it or not.

But, I do, actually agree that they should have a lot more "rights" than they currently do, I'm just not sure how it would actually be implemented...

Bugger.

[Stand Your Ground]

I think 18 is good.

[JJM 777]

My thoughts:
voting: 13
sex between persons of same peer group: 13
drinking alcohol: 13

hmmm... quite many things 13 I guess.

[Killfacer]

My thoughts:
voting: 13
sex between persons of same peer group: 13
drinking alcohol: 13

hmmm... quite many things 13 I guess.

I assume your 13?

[jake williams]

every argument of the type 'we can't allow people of x years of age to do y because they will tend to make the wrong/self-destructive choices while doing y, is also going to be applicable to large numbers of people of x+z years of age, where x+z equals the age you think the age of majority should be.

All of these arguments are incoherent. The fact is that there is no argument that justifies age discrimination but we have such impulsively paternalistic urges to control children that we feel a need to do so and rationalize our impulses...the assumption that these impulses are rational however, is just false. they're not. get over it.


Children should be able to do everything without exception that adults can do. many of them will hurt or evil kill themselves. many of them will make stupid choices that fuck up their lives. The same is of course true of allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices and live the lives they want to live: if we recognize that denying someone the power to control their own decisions is tantamount to stripping them of their dignity and equality and that these are things more valuable than the safety of being rendered incapable of choice and risk...then there is no analytic reason why the argument applies to adults but not children.

Similarly arguing that some adults are incompetent but children are more often incompetent and 'you have to draw the line somewhere' and 'any point you pick will be both over and underinclusive' while more coherent than a simple stupid 'children aren't developed enough to decide x until they reach y years old' is also faulty because age is just one of many metrics which could be statistically coorrelated to people's choices...so would class, gender, race, old age rather than young age, geographic background, education, measures of intelligence, etc...

we recognize that the mere fact that one can make some stiatical predictions about someone's level of relative competence for certain tasks according to their demographics does not justify discrimination...in any other area except young age.


So what makes young people 'special?'

Because they're remarkably powerless, so much so that they don't have the means to introduce into the political discourse a debate on their inferior status or even, generally, articulate it and problematize it themselves. They have largely adopted the ideology of their oppressor, just as many oppressed groups do when their oppression is so overwhelming as to prevent political conciousness.
TC is always right.

[scarletghoul]

13. It is when people form political opinions, develop for sex and stuff. It would also make bar mitzvahs have some purpose. But of course its differant for differant people, so I dunno if age is the best way to judge these things.

[mannetje]

In my little puny country was recently a big drama about a girl who wants to make a solo-sailing trip around the world. her parents where ok with it but the dutch child protection service brougth the matter to court, where they wanted her parents put out of their parental responsibility. I'm maybe naive in this but i think she should go. If she really got the strength for trip she should do it. when I was about 11 years old my parents found it ok that I travelled with a summertourticket from the railways. I travelled on my own evertwhere thru the country. It's to compare with what that girl wants to do, but no one of my friends where allowed to go with me from their parents. but i never got in to trouble and I think it was good for my development too.

[JJM 777]

I assume your 13?
What if I were 13? Would it make the wish less valid?

I am 35 though.

[jake williams]

When I was thirteen me and all my friends were all totally batshit and we made terrible decisions. If anything you should have total freedom until you turn thirteen, and get it back when you turn fourteen.

[Comrade B]

I am 18, I have friends who have stupid as shit ideas...
maybe we should have to test to get voting rights, driving rights, drinking rights, and tests of general maturity...

[Killfacer]

What if I were 13? Would it make the wish less valid?

I am 35 though.

well i think most 13 year olds think they should be allowed to do everything.

[JJM 777]

well i think most 13 year olds think they should be allowed to do everything.
Exactly. And this means that they will feel like they are injustly discriminated against, when their biological basic instincts are forbidden, but they see older people freely and happily following the same instincts or desires.

Is it right -- moral, just, biologically reasonable -- to forbid the fulfillment of basic biological instincts or desires from teenagers before they turn 18 years old?

[Luís Henrique]

TC is always right.

Even - or especially - when she's wrong.

And believe me, it is much more fun to be right when you are wrong than when you are right.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Now seriously.

The main concerns in this thread seem to be:

- driving;
- drinking;
- voting;
- having sex.

This tells a lot about our demographics.

The most important thing about "majority" is penal age - the age at which you can be criminally prosecuted. That should be a major concern for a group of working class revolutionary youngsters, but for some reason it wasn't really discussed. At what age do you think people should take full responsibility for their acts?

Luís Henrique

[JJM 777]

At what age do you think people should take full responsibility for their acts?

Two ages should be defined: the maximum age of no moral / legal responsibility at all, and the minimum age of full moral / legal responsibility. Persons between these two ages would be responsible gradually more and more, as they appreach the point of full responsibility.

I think 6 years could be the maximum age of no moral / legal responsibility of any kind, and maybe 16 years the minimum age of full responsibility. I don't feel very objective or scientific about these age limits, not an easy question.

[Luís Henrique]

I think 6 years could be the maximum age of no moral / legal responsibility of any kind, and maybe 16 years the minimum age of full responsibility. I don't feel very objective or scientific about these age limits, not an easy question.
Wow. 6 years?!

Luís Henrique

[Comrade B]

I think 6 years could be the maximum age of no moral / legal responsibility of any kind, and maybe 16 years the minimum age of full responsibility.
I got in a lot of fights in high school... should I have been charged with assault?

[JJM 777]

Wow. 6 years?!
If 6 years is 0% and 16 years is 100%, the scale would be:

6 years = 0%
7 years = 10%
8 years = 20%
9 years = 30%
10 years = 40%
11 years = 50%
12 years = 60%
13 years = 70%
14 years = 80%
15 years = 90%
16 years = 100%

So if the person commits a crime, for example steals something, persons 16 years or older would receive 100% penalty what is set in the law, 11 years old would receive 50% of the penalty, and 7 years old would receive 10% of the penalty.

As mentioned afore, I don't feel perfectly omniscient about these age limits, but generally I am confident that legal responsibility should come gradually in this fashion, not overnight when you have your Xth birthday.

And I admit that I generally view under 18 years old persons as more independent and responsible for their actions than many law theorists nowadays do. We commonly hear experts say that "all persons under 18 years are children, and children don't understand anything" etc. -- I have a very different view about the issue.

[jake williams]

Even - or especially - when she's wrong
I just can't think of a time I've read a post by TC that I've (fundamentally) disagreed with. Maybe once or twice.

As for legal responsibility, as I made quite clear in the youth liberation post that I don't think people with a total lack of capacity to drive should be allowed to drive, whether they're four or whether they're forty. It's possible that in almost no cases will a four year old have the requisite ability to drive, but I don't really see that as a case of discrimination on the basis of age. Similarly: if any person doesn't possess some moral or intellectual capacity to comprehend technically or morally the consequences of their actions, I don't think they should be held legally or morally responsible. To put it another way: there are more rational reasons that people assume a toddler shouldn't be arrested for theft than the fact that they are two years old; it's not because they're two, it's because they (at least theoretically) couldn't have known not to do it. I think if that's the logic you accept, then anyone who couldn't have (didn't?) known X was wrong shouldn't be held morally accountable for the moral consequences of X. My point anyway is it shouldn't be about age. It's very complex, however, and it's difficult to talk about briefly.

[JJM 777]

In all age groups some exemptions are made, and will be made, for persons who are clearly retarded mentally.

The general feeling of people is, I believe, that using the same standard age limits for all persons, based on the average development rate of human beings, feels more equal than giving exemptions and special favours to some persons in an age group, and banning things from some others in the same age group, because of small differences in their genetic heritage (and hence, mental development rate).

[jake williams]

In all age groups some exemptions are made, and will be made, for persons who are clearly retarded mentally.

The general feeling of people is, I believe, that using the same standard age limits for all persons, based on the average development rate of human beings, feels more equal than giving exemptions and special favours to some persons in an age group, and banning things from some others in the same age group, because of small differences in their genetic heritage (and hence, mental development rate).
It's hardly more "equal", you're discriminating in the technical sense (choosing one group of people to the exclusion of another) either way, it's just that one way is rational and sensible and the other isn't.

[JJM 777]

Not actually choosing any "group of people", but instead making all people equally go through the same stages of gradually increasing independence in the society. (This is how all existing states handle the issue, I think.)

Making all people go through the same stages of seemingly necessary discrimination, in a manner that the vast majority of population agrees with, is fundamentally different from racism, for example, which gives a different life experience to different individuals.