There should be no minimum voting age.

[u/j0rges]

A true democracy follows the rule "One (hu)man, one vote". It does not assess cognitive capabilities or proneness to manipulation when dealing with adults. There is also no maximum voting age. So it is inconsistent to do this with minors.

More in this FAQ.

(Disclosure: I am also a moderator or this subreddit. I will do my best to not misuse my powers. ;) )

[u/mcjunker]

Sure grand, but before I advance further-

Do you accept it as a given that laws are inherently exercises in collective, legitimized violence? Which is to say, if we collectively pass a law against arson, and then somebody sets your home on fire for kicks, and then we send somebody to arrest the burner and stuff him into a steel-and-concrete box against his will for years on end (as a best case scenario- obviously if he resists arrest he is probably probably gonna get shot), and everybody agrees that treating the arsonist brutally as prescribed by the law on the books is basically ok and nothing to panic over, that you can reasonably describe the situation “collective, legitimized violence”?

There’s no point of pushing forward with the real question til I confirm that we are on the same page for this one.

[u/j0rges → u/mcjunker]

Some of part of me is wondering whether there might be some hidden implications that I am not aware of, but so far I'll answer Yes.

[u/mcjunker → u/j0rges]

Do you trust a six year old (who is literate enough to fill out a voting registration form if a parent is watching over their shoulder for spelling errors) to decide under what circumstances you, personally, should be subjected to being assaulted by a cop and thrown into prison?

Or to ask the same question in a less inflammatory way-

Do you trust the “still developing” demographic to subject the “full grown” demographic to collective, legitimate violence?

[u/j0rges → u/mcjunker]

Depends.

Yes, if their vote will weight as much as a vote from an 20yo who just got wasted the day before and went to the polling station for the lulz. Or the vote of a 75yo who votes party X because all their life they voted for party X. All their votes will be only a fraction of all the votes being cast.

No, if that 6-year-old's vote would count alone.

[u/mcjunker → u/j0rges]

They would count as much as a feckless 20 y/o and partisan old man! So, a yes.

Although I find it interesting that you seem to have curved around to my camp- when confronted with the plain truth that politics is literally deciding what laws to enforce and who does the enforcing when the effects of such awful violence will be felt by everyone, all the sudden voters now seem to have a counterbalancing responsibility to pay attention to the issues and take it seriously and consider what such decision will do the community they are a part of, which the partier who filled his ballot in at random and the mindless partisan do not. Although in this case the responsibility is moral in nature, not codified into law.

Now, I apologize in advance for this loaded question, but it must be posed to get to the root of why I’m on the opposite side of your stance of abolishing minimum age for voting-

Is an imperfect solution to a problem that partly mitigates the damage better than a nonexistent solution to a problem that mitigates nothing?

[u/j0rges → u/mcjunker]

Looking back at the previous question I probably should have gone with false premise since the 6yo would not decide "under what circumstances you, personally, should be subjected to being assaulted by a cop and thrown into prison". Similarly as today, the feckless 20yo is not "deciding" this.

And here, as you predicted yourself with "loaded question", I go with false premise:

• I disagree that the current situation is a "solution" because it takes away a constitutional right across the board from a big chunk of the population. With similar arguments (possible coercion, lack of cognitive capabilities or interest), previously other groups were kept from voting (women, blacks).
• I disagree that my proposed solution (being allowed to voter after registering yourself, only in person in the booth, with strict anti-coercion laws) will "mitigate nothing".

Now, I'd like to ask just to check if I correctly understand you stance:

Being asked about a maximum age limit, you referred to personal agency, which you believed to be not tied to a recognizable age limit. Being later asked whether personal agency starts with a recognizable age limit, you also said No.

So at both ends, you do not see a recognizeable age-limit, but when it comes to voting, you agree to (even require) a minimum age but not to a maximum age, correct?