Assumptions/issues that underly political debate

[phoenixfire]

A number of issues that are discussed seem to have a set of underlying assumptions that are not discussed. So I thought it would be insightful to discuss those assumptions, as it might make it easier to find a common basis for debating other issues.

1. How does one determine what constitutes a 'civil right' and why?

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?

3. When should government make a law regarding a specific issue, and when should it not? What is the purpose and goal of the law/government?

4. Is it possible to have 'value neutral' laws?

5. Is it theoretically possible to have a government/society that people of every religion and philosophical bent could agree was fair and didn't favor one group over another? Is it possible to have a harmonious pluralistic society, or do pluralistic societies always result in constant power struggles?

I'd be interested to hear opinions regarding these questions.

[phoenixfire]

I thought this was a great thread and I'm sad that nobody seems interested in discussing these issues and assumptions as I see these questions inextricably intertwined with a number of other issues (gay marriage, separation of church and state, education, law and the supreme court, etc.)

[Cathar1950]

Check! I am still in.
Yesterday was my birthday and I am 55 but still look and feel 54.
Life, liberty, and the persuade of happiness? They seem like modest rights.

[micatala]

As some of this discussion came up in the HOly Huddle Room, I thought I would bring my response there into this thread and see if others were interested in continuing the discussion in the wider forum.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Quote:
I am also bothered by the role religion takes in politics. What right do we have to force our beliefs on others?

But this doesn't make sense. For more detail, please see this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2055

.

We did kind of leave the other thread hanging, didn't we. For my part, I will plead business and throw in that it is a good thread, but one that does require (for me anyway) a little more time and thought to respond than some of the others. Maybe we'll get back there.

But for now. . . .

First, there is no such thing as value-neutral laws. Every law is an expression of someone's determination of what is 'good' or bad'.
And whenever you say something is 'good' you are making a value judgment. We think it is good to be able live in a more advanced society, it is good for people to be free, to gain knowledge, to raise your own children, to give everyone a chance to live where they want and puruse they occupation they want, to give everyone an equal chance to be rich, etc. Not every society has held those values, though in our culture those are pretty much unanimously accepted.

Second, pluralistic societies will always have conflict since it is not theoretically possible to have a set of laws that every group believes is fair and doesn't favor one group's views over others.

I would mostly agree with this. Some laws seem to me not to have much 'values relevance' to me, but you can probably make a case that even pragmatic things like parking regulations, traffic laws, etc. are supporting larger values like "protecting life and property", providing "equal access" etc.

Therefore, all statements such as 'What right do you have to force your views on me' are rather silly because our laws have to reflect someone's values. Instead, the question is what values should our laws reflect? What is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

Here, I start to diverge from your thinking. It is anything but a silly arguement for a number of reasons. The statement you are making, without a lot more qualification, seems to ignore the difference in the severity of the effects of a law that might be favored by a majority, but is based on values not at all accepted by a minority.

For example, a law that prohibited any sexual acts between people of the same sex, even in the privacy of their own homes, would have a huge impact on those who identify themselves as homosexuals, but no real effect on those that are not. If those who felt such a law were 'good' imposed this on society, it is quite possible there would be no effect at all on anyone but homosexuals, as others would not even be aware of what homosexuals were doing in the privacy of their own homes.

Your statement also seems to ignore that some laws might be consistent with only a very narrow value system (eg. you must worship at a Muslim Mosque on a regular basis), while some laws might be consistent with a number of different value systems which are widely divergent (eg. citizens may worship wherever and whenever they wish, or choose not to worship at all).

I would suggest that one measure of the 'goodness' of a law is the extent to which it is consistent with the widest possible set of varying values.

Politics is just a game of power between various groups who are trying to make the law reflect their view of what is 'good' and 'bad'. When we live in a democracy we agree that whoever is in the majority has a 'right' to have the laws reflect their values, but only to the extent that the laws do not infringe upon the set of 'rights' that the society has agreed to respect.

Yes, politics is at least partly a game of power, and the majority is given great weight to make the rules. I bolded the last part of your statement, because this is really the crux of the matter. Which things are we going to agree on as basic rights, and moreover, how are we going to decide on what these rights are? If we are not able to agree as a society, does this mean the bare majority gets to decide what these rights are? If that is the case, then there really are no basic rights. Under this scenario, racial and gender discrimination would be just fine, as long as the majority felt that such laws were 'good.'

It seems to me what we need is a process by which we decide what the 'basic rights' are, and this is a very tricky thing. The process certainly cannot be 'majority rule.'

One possibility would be to create criteria that could be used to decide on what is a basic right and what is not. I would suggest these should be as general as possible, so as to be applicable to the widest number of possible enumerated rights. It would also help to remove the discussion from particular potential rights that some believe should be basic and others believe should not be granted at all.

I haven't really thought too deeply about how this might be done, but I'll make a couple of suggestions.

1. As noted above, laws or rights that are consistent with a wide variety of value systems are better than those that are consistent with fewer values systems.
2. If granting a basic right has very minimial or no impact on those who do not wish to exercise the right, that greatly diminishes the rationale for not granting the right.
3. We might try to learn from history. If a particular right has a history whereby societies that have granted it are deemed to have functioned well, while societies that have not granted it are deemed to have functioned less well, this is support for granting the right.
4. In any division of the society into disjoint groups A and B, if a proposed law effects A and B differently, then it is better if the law be perceived as equally fair if the roles of A and B are reversed, than if this is not the case.

What do you think? Do these criteria make some sense? Can we make them better? What other ones could we add?

As American Christians, the only choice we have is whether we are going to try to make the law reflect what we believe to be God's values, or we're going to be passive and let the laws reflect another set of values (which would by definition be false as would anything that does not align with the order established by God.)

Certainly I agree that it is appropriate for Christians to express themselves with regards to what are good and bad laws. However, we must accept that, even though the U.S. (if we want to specifically talk U.S., or we could simply think in terms of any country) is predominantly Christian, there are millions of U.S. citizens that are not. I will point out that, at least in the New Testament, I don't think you will find much if any support for the notion that CHristians should feel free to impose Christian doctrine on those that are not Christian as a matter of civil law.

Even in the Old Testament, non-Israelites were not expected to abide by all of the laws that applied to the Israelites. THe values and doctrines of Christianity apply to those who have agreed of their own free will to follow Christ.

In my view, we should advocate for laws that we think are conducive to the society we wish to live in, and we are fortunately very free to do so here in the U.S., but we should keep in mind that these laws will apply to both CHristians and non-CHristians. A law that has as its sole reason for being that it is consistent with CHristian doctrine should not be enacted, unless it can also be shown that it is necessary and or conducive to assisting in the smooth functioning of a society that includes a very wide variety of other belief systems.

[phoenixfire]

I do think it is important in any theoretical society to protect minorities

you may have a point in regards to the fact that some values align with more groups.

super majority for rights and laws

I do not believe in a theocracy as free will in a central Christian theme. I do think people should have a right to not believe in God, etc. but their freedom ends when they start to hurt other people and rob them of the chance to know the truth and live a happy life (unfortunatley there is quite a difference of opinion on what things fall into this cateogry)

But I digress as I am not aruging for an explicityly christian position and am more interested in exploring theoretically ideal frameworks before getting into the specifics of Christian application.

As some of this discussion came up in the HOly Huddle Room, I thought I would bring my response there into this thread and see if others were interested in continuing the discussion in the wider forum.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Quote:
I am also bothered by the role religion takes in politics. What right do we have to force our beliefs on others?

But this doesn't make sense. For more detail, please see this thread: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=2055

.

We did kind of leave the other thread hanging, didn't we. For my part, I will plead business and throw in that it is a good thread, but one that does require (for me anyway) a little more time and thought to respond than some of the others. Maybe we'll get back there.

But for now. . . .

First, there is no such thing as value-neutral laws. Every law is an expression of someone's determination of what is 'good' or bad'.
And whenever you say something is 'good' you are making a value judgment. We think it is good to be able live in a more advanced society, it is good for people to be free, to gain knowledge, to raise your own children, to give everyone a chance to live where they want and puruse they occupation they want, to give everyone an equal chance to be rich, etc. Not every society has held those values, though in our culture those are pretty much unanimously accepted.

Second, pluralistic societies will always have conflict since it is not theoretically possible to have a set of laws that every group believes is fair and doesn't favor one group's views over others.

I would mostly agree with this. Some laws seem to me not to have much 'values relevance' to me, but you can probably make a case that even pragmatic things like parking regulations, traffic laws, etc. are supporting larger values like "protecting life and property", providing "equal access" etc.

Therefore, all statements such as 'What right do you have to force your views on me' are rather silly because our laws have to reflect someone's values. Instead, the question is what values should our laws reflect? What is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

Here, I start to diverge from your thinking. It is anything but a silly arguement for a number of reasons. The statement you are making, without a lot more qualification, seems to ignore the difference in the severity of the effects of a law that might be favored by a majority, but is based on values not at all accepted by a minority.

For example, a law that prohibited any sexual acts between people of the same sex, even in the privacy of their own homes, would have a huge impact on those who identify themselves as homosexuals, but no real effect on those that are not. If those who felt such a law were 'good' imposed this on society, it is quite possible there would be no effect at all on anyone but homosexuals, as others would not even be aware of what homosexuals were doing in the privacy of their own homes.

Your statement also seems to ignore that some laws might be consistent with only a very narrow value system (eg. you must worship at a Muslim Mosque on a regular basis), while some laws might be consistent with a number of different value systems which are widely divergent (eg. citizens may worship wherever and whenever they wish, or choose not to worship at all).

I would suggest that one measure of the 'goodness' of a law is the extent to which it is consistent with the widest possible set of varying values.

Politics is just a game of power between various groups who are trying to make the law reflect their view of what is 'good' and 'bad'. When we live in a democracy we agree that whoever is in the majority has a 'right' to have the laws reflect their values, but only to the extent that the laws do not infringe upon the set of 'rights' that the society has agreed to respect.

Yes, politics is at least partly a game of power, and the majority is given great weight to make the rules. I bolded the last part of your statement, because this is really the crux of the matter. Which things are we going to agree on as basic rights, and moreover, how are we going to decide on what these rights are? If we are not able to agree as a society, does this mean the bare majority gets to decide what these rights are? If that is the case, then there really are no basic rights. Under this scenario, racial and gender discrimination would be just fine, as long as the majority felt that such laws were 'good.'

It seems to me what we need is a process by which we decide what the 'basic rights' are, and this is a very tricky thing. The process certainly cannot be 'majority rule.'

One possibility would be to create criteria that could be used to decide on what is a basic right and what is not. I would suggest these should be as general as possible, so as to be applicable to the widest number of possible enumerated rights. It would also help to remove the discussion from particular potential rights that some believe should be basic and others believe should not be granted at all.

I haven't really thought too deeply about how this might be done, but I'll make a couple of suggestions.

1. As noted above, laws or rights that are consistent with a wide variety of value systems are better than those that are consistent with fewer values systems.
2. If granting a basic right has very minimial or no impact on those who do not wish to exercise the right, that greatly diminishes the rationale for not granting the right.
3. We might try to learn from history. If a particular right has a history whereby societies that have granted it are deemed to have functioned well, while societies that have not granted it are deemed to have functioned less well, this is support for granting the right.
4. In any division of the society into disjoint groups A and B, if a proposed law effects A and B differently, then it is better if the law be perceived as equally fair if the roles of A and B are reversed, than if this is not the case.

What do you think? Do these criteria make some sense? Can we make them better? What other ones could we add?

As American Christians, the only choice we have is whether we are going to try to make the law reflect what we believe to be God's values, or we're going to be passive and let the laws reflect another set of values (which would by definition be false as would anything that does not align with the order established by God.)

Certainly I agree that it is appropriate for Christians to express themselves with regards to what are good and bad laws. However, we must accept that, even though the U.S. (if we want to specifically talk U.S., or we could simply think in terms of any country) is predominantly Christian, there are millions of U.S. citizens that are not. I will point out that, at least in the New Testament, I don't think you will find much if any support for the notion that CHristians should feel free to impose Christian doctrine on those that are not Christian as a matter of civil law.

Even in the Old Testament, non-Israelites were not expected to abide by all of the laws that applied to the Israelites. THe values and doctrines of Christianity apply to those who have agreed of their own free will to follow Christ.

In my view, we should advocate for laws that we think are conducive to the society we wish to live in, and we are fortunately very free to do so here in the U.S., but we should keep in mind that these laws will apply to both CHristians and non-CHristians. A law that has as its sole reason for being that it is consistent with CHristian doctrine should not be enacted, unless it can also be shown that it is necessary and or conducive to assisting in the smooth functioning of a society that includes a very wide variety of other belief systems.

[Cephus]

1. How does one determine what constitutes a 'civil right' and why?
Without getting too much into the exact definition of a "right", a civil right is a right that applies to everyone under the jurisdiction of the government that states it. Regardless of any additional behavioral or genetic characteristics, if they are human, then the rights apply to them.

Very true. Civil rights are those things that a government or society has decided apply to citizens under their jurisdiction.

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?
We'd have to go back to the idea that there is such a thing as human dignity, that there are certain common denominators about being human in all its various forms, and that as a society we must respect that dignity.

That doesn't really matter, there isn't any such thing as a 'basic human right'. There are no rights outside of the societal context, rights are granted by the society or culture a person lives in. Try going to a Muslim country and tell them that women are equal to men, they'll laugh at you. What is true in the US is not necessarily true elsewhere and that doesn't make other systems better or worse, just different. It is the height of hypocracy for Americans to suggest that we have to impose our will on everyone else because they all deserve the 'rights' we have.

[phoenixfire]

Therefore, all statements such as 'What right do you have to force your views on me' are rather silly because our laws have to reflect someone's values. Instead, the question is what values should our laws reflect? What is 'good' and what is 'bad'.

Here, I start to diverge from your thinking. It is anything but a silly arguement for a number of reasons. The statement you are making, without a lot more qualification, seems to ignore the difference in the severity of the effects of a law that might be favored by a majority, but is based on values not at all accepted by a minority.

For example, a law that prohibited any sexual acts between people of the same sex, even in the privacy of their own homes, would have a huge impact on those who identify themselves as homosexuals, but no real effect on those that are not. If those who felt such a law were 'good' imposed this on society, it is quite possible there would be no effect at all on anyone but homosexuals, as others would not even be aware of what homosexuals were doing in the privacy of their own homes.

Your statement also seems to ignore that some laws might be consistent with only a very narrow value system (eg. you must worship at a Muslim Mosque on a regular basis), while some laws might be consistent with a number of different value systems which are widely divergent (eg. citizens may worship wherever and whenever they wish, or choose not to worship at all).

I would suggest that one measure of the 'goodness' of a law is the extent to which it is consistent with the widest possible set of varying values....It seems to me what we need is a process by which we decide what the 'basic rights' are, and this is a very tricky thing. The process certainly cannot be 'majority rule.'

There may be some truth to this, but I think the primary measure of the 'goodness' of a law is the extent to which the law conforms to reality. There may be laws and forms of government that people think will make for a better society but actually don't because they are not reflective of the true nature of humanity and the world we live in (Communism comes to mind).

Only time will tell which things actually work and which don't which is why deference should be given to laws, customs, etc. that have been proven to work over centuries.

Of course, different groups will claim that law X actually is most congruent with reality and the only way to resolve this difference that I can see is to vote.

So the way this should work is that 75% or so of the people in society X have to agree on a basic set of rights to put into a Constitution...and if this can't be done the society needs to split into smaller units that are more homogoneous.

Something like this basically happened with America, but society has changed so much that we don't agree on what rights actually are in the Constitution and what rights should be in the Constitution.

One possibility would be to create criteria that could be used to decide on what is a basic right and what is not. I would suggest these should be as general as possible, so as to be applicable to the widest number of possible enumerated rights. It would also help to remove the discussion from particular potential rights that some believe should be basic and others believe should not be granted at all.

Ok, would you agree with the statement that the majority should be able to make law as long as it doesn't infringe on agreed upon 'rights' (although those rights may need to be expanded)?

Basically, I would like to see the set of rights and rules clearly enumerated so we can see what laws are a fair exercise of 'forcing majority values' on society.

1. Let's make the assumption that every human has equal value (and thus equal rights), which does already seem to be an American value and is quite a contrast to places like India.

2. There needs to be some hierarchy of rights to help decide which right wins if there is a conflict.

3. I assume everyone still agrees with the basic idea of everything in the Bill of Rights (though some things should be clarified)

What else?

[ST88]

Hey, thanks for resuccitating this thread!

1. How does one determine what constitutes a 'civil right' and why?
Without getting too much into the exact definition of a "right", a civil right is a right that applies to everyone under the jurisdiction of the government that states it. Regardless of any additional behavioral or genetic characteristics, if they are human, then the rights apply to them.

For what it's worth, Webster's defines a civil right as

[a] nonpolitical right of a citizen, especially the rights of personal liberty guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the 13th and 14th amendments . . . and by acts of Congress

This seems pretty narrow to me. In fact, the reference to the two amendments seems wierd, especially as it does not mention some of the first few amendments regarding freedom of religion, right to bear arms, etc.

Obviously civil rights are narrower than 'basic human rights.' Our constituion talks about the latter in mentioning 'inalienable' rights which are 'endowed by our creator.' I guess I would agree with ST88 on his definition of civil right.

Defining "right" is such a tricky endeavor that I didn't know where to go with it. It's somewhere near an "entitlement", but because it's stated in the Constitution as an extra-governmental idea, that word doesn't quite fit. That is, despite what governments may allow or disallow their citizens to do through various punishments and rewards, there exists a set of values that all humans share, or should share, that government cannot touch. Governments may from time to time violate these "rights" but only when we can be clear on what "violations" are can be begin to define what those rights are.

2. How does one determine what a 'basic human right' is and why?
We'd have to go back to the idea that there is such a thing as human dignity, that there are certain common denominators about being human in all its various forms, and that as a society we must respect that dignity.

But how do we determine which things qualify as basic human rights? For instance, if I say that I have a basic human right to use drugs and to do whatever I want to my body, how would we determine whether this does or does not fit into the category of basic rights?

Yes, this is much trickier. I don't know how we could ever create a clearcut rule for deciding what are 'basic human rights.' It is probably easier to talk about examples of things that most would say 'clearly are' and others which 'clearly are not.'

I would suggest that things that are considered rights in a wide variety of cultures, societies, religions, etc. are more likely to be 'basic human rights,' but I don't think we can use this criterion in all cases. For example, equal rights between genders seems to me to be a basic right, but not all religions or denominations would necessarily agree, certainly not in the past and some even today.

That's true. In terms of my answer above, we would have to redefine "human dignity" based on every era of a society. For example, is dwarf-tossing a basic human rights issue? Does it matter if the dwarves are themselves agreeable to the practice? Does the TV show "Survivor" violate basic human dignity? Does pornography? Do secret torture prisons in other countries?

The statement in the Constitution says that these rights exist, but does not enumerate them. The Bill of Rights sheds some light on what they mean, but there is some controversy whether or not these rights were meant to be exhaustive or even explicit.

3. When should government make a law regarding a specific issue, and when should it not? What is the purpose and goal of the law/government?
This is really an opinion question. I think the purpose of government is to protect citizens from various natural and man-made phenomenae, like business cycles, war, disease, asteroid strikes, telephone solicitation, etc.

I tend to think government should make as few laws as possible. However, the government should create laws as necessary to help insure that individuals have equal rights and equal opportunity to exercise their rights.

I agree that the government should make as few laws as possible; however, perhaps not for the same reason as you do. The real culprit of complicating the law code is addressing the specific situation. For example, in Santa Cruz it is illegal to be a peeping Tom. However, because the law was written before the advent of cameras, the law -- strictly interpreted by the court -- did not apply to hidden cameras. So, did they rewrite the law so that the intent of the statute was clear? No, they merely attached language to it that covered the technology in question. That is how the legal code gets too complicated. Laws should be written so that they apply to the greatest number of people -- ideally to everyone, though that is sometimes not possible (e.g., deaf people are exempt from heeding a police whistle).

So while government should strive to make as few laws as possible, sometimes that means having tomes the size of Nebraska to explain everything.

I'm not sure I would include 'protection from natural phenomenon' as a right, although I think governments can undertake this duty if the governed so desire, or on their own.

I would think that a government would have to provide protection for things over which the population would otherwise have no control. This is not to say alleviation of suffering should something occur. If people want to live in a flood plain, that should be their business. But it should be the government's responsibility to tell them that they live in a flood plain -- not ban building or prevent people from moving there -- and prepare accordingly (and possibly how to prepare). Like you say, actions in the aftermath of a natural disaster should probably be up to the will of the governed (i.e., FEMA). This is the level of protection I was talking about.

[phoenixfire]

I'm moving this here from the 'God and the US political parties' thread
***************************
Micatala wrote:

If you are saying that every basic right applies to all humans, than I would say it depends on the right and possibly on the 'nature' of the person, including in some cases their stage of development. As noted above, children have fewer rights than adults. In some sense, profoundly retarded people have fewer rights. We wouldn't let such people drive (I wouldn't think) and I'm not sure what the laws are on voting, serving on juries, right to make certain decisions, etc. The developmental capacities or stages of a human are not the be all and end all of rights, but they are not irrelevant either, and have not been considered so historically.

Most (if not all) societies have made distinctions, based on developmental stage, on how or to whom they grant rights, and I doubt there would be too much disagreement on the appropriateness and reasonableness of this practice.

I think my answer to the first of your questions makes this question somewhat moot. Whatever we agree on as a definition of human, we still have to acknowledge that we never have, and probably cannot in all circumstances, grant exactly the same rights to all humans, even if you make the point of birth as the defining point of 'humanness.'

I think their is a distinction that needs to be made between 'rights' and 'priveleges'. A right is, as the declaration of independece states, inalienable. They cannot be taken away.

'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men'

I would consider the things you cite (like Driving) to be privileges that you get by learning a certain skill or being a certain age. And these things can be taken away if you act irresponsibly. This would include driving, drinking, carrying a gun, etc.

Rights are something that every citizen of a country has (or every human has) merely because they are a member of that group.

I do think it is important to have a strict definitino of what a human/citizen is and what rights go along with that. Otherwise some other group can take away their rights as soon as they can convince enough people that group X is not human or a lesser human. And I think the founding fathers erred in not doing this. If we had had a strict definition of what is human then maybe we could have avoided slavery, segregation, women not being able to vote, etc.

[micatala]

I think their is a distinction that needs to be made between 'rights' and 'priveleges'. A right is, as the declaration of independece states, inalienable. They cannot be taken away.

I would partially agree with this. However, I do not think you can always easily distinguish between the two.

Driving, for instance, could be considered an essential or at least important means by which one exercises the more basic right of 'freedom of movement.'

Voting could be considered a very basic right, and yet we do have age limits on voting.

I do think it is important to have a strict definitino of what a human/citizen is and what rights go along with that. Otherwise some other group can take away their rights as soon as they can convince enough people that group X is not human or a lesser human. And I think the founding fathers erred in not doing this. If we had had a strict definition of what is human then maybe we could have avoided slavery, segregation, women not being able to vote, etc.

This would be helpful, but I don't think it will be that easy. I would suggest that if we had let the founding fathers define on a strict definition of human/citizen they would definitely have not included unborn children, and may not have included even very young children. After all, for a time those who did not own property did not have the same rights and privelages as those who did.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Weee political philosophy!

I would say that I agree with John Locke's Social Contract and Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian ideas. What we know as human and rights is based on common consensus.

I think humanity and acknowledging another human involves a level of empathy that cannot be achieved with anything less (or more?) than human. We cant have empathy with a gorilla like we can with a fellow human. I think that from this level of empathy that we hold among our own species we decided what we would want from others and thus what others would want from us. I would want to be able to say what I want to say and so would by neighbor (freedom of speech). I think that is does really depend on the society and the conditions that society is in that determines what it deems as a basic human right.

I think that once the human community decides what it would like protected, it establishes authority amongst itself, by common consent, for the sake of protecting those rights (social contract). Once this authority (government) is established, it makes laws for two distinct purposes. To protect those rights and to maintain justice.

Those are my ideas on the topic itself, now I want to dscuss the other posts.

Voting could be considered a very basic right, and yet we do have age limits on voting.

I would disagree. Voting is a right within a democratic society, but I would think its self-evident why we have age restrictions. The population of children would elect the the candidate that owns that candy factory and promises to lower the price of snickers. The 18 year-old is ages more mature than the 16 year-old.

This would be helpful, but I don't think it will be that easy. I would suggest that if we had let the founding fathers define on a strict definition of human/citizen they would definitely have not included unborn children, and may not have included even very young children. After all, for a time those who did not own property did not have the same rights and privelages as those who did.

Agreed. The founding fathers, although brilliant men. Definately and a few skewed ideas by todays standards. A human would probably not include slaves. I think its best that that human is left for interpretation by the time.