RSS
Kiddie Cocktails
Perhaps I have grown overly cynical, but I saw this Fox News report and my first thought was, “Well, sure, lower the drinking age, and you’ll increase the tax base.” Especially if, as awb writes, states increase the alcohol tax significantly.
Apparently, seven states are considering lowering the drinking age to 18. Kentucky, Wisconsin, and South Carolina would lower the drinking age for persons in the military. I really have no problem with this idea, especially if the drinking is confined to military installations. If we can ask these young men and women to fight and possibly die for their country, they should be able to purchase a beer. If you have an M-16, you should be able to have a Budweiser. Nonetheless, they would probably have a bit of a legal battle on their hands if they were to pass legislation, which on its face, discriminates against others in the same age group based upon their military service. South Dakota, Missouri, Vermont and Minnesota, sidestep this problem by lowering the drinking age for all children.
I suppose its a sign that I’m too old (you can’t trust me; I’m over thirty), but I hate to think of what would happen to the music at my favorite watering holes if youngsters were allowed to control the jukebox. For that reason, I oppose extending drinking privileges to children.
April 13th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Karl writes : “I oppose extending drinking privileges to children.”
When it comes to children, the authority is not the State’s to say yay or nay at the local pub. That authority is the parent’s. Just as it’s the parent’s in the home to say yay or nay to a glass of wine at dinner.
April 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Well, I would agree with that. A parent should be able to determine whether their child should have a glass of wine with dinner. For one thing, it teaches them to dine in a civilized manner.
However, it is another thing entirely when we are talking about an 18-year-old child walking into a tavern and bellying up to the bar.
April 13th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
If he’s a child, then the age as well as location is irrelevant because the authority he is under is his parents.
If he is not a child, then why should he be precluded from something as common as purchasing a beer?
April 14th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
I have heard it said that it would make more sense to allow individuals to drink at 16 and drive at 21. The idea being that by the time an individual would be allowed to drive legally, the novelty of drinking would have worn off, thus making for safer drivers. Thoughts?
April 15th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Of course the state has the authority to regulate the drinking age, over and beyond parental authority. But the age of sale and possession should be in line with the age of majority. So, either (a) raise the voting age back to 21, (b) lower the drinking age, or (c) outlaw liquor (not a good idea.)
WAC
April 15th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
awb,
I would be right with you, except that the age kids are allowed to drop out of school in many states is 16, and, if you drop out of school, you need to get a job, and, thus, need to drive a car.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Mr Wac writes : “Of course the state has the authority to regulate the drinking age, over and beyond parental authority.”
Please provide proof that this authority to regulate the drinking age exists in the state. Please be aware that simple assertion by the state is not a proof, but it must be proved that this particualar regulation devolves from God to the state according to the nature of the particular law.
For instance, the first commandment could be invoked for laws against excessive drinking.
Or the fifth for laws against drinking and driving.
But under which of God’s law does the state abrogate a parents authority to regulate their children’s consumption of alchohol?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:09 am
From the Catechism: “Alone among all animate beings, man can boast of having been counted worthy to receive a law from God: as an animal endowed with reason, capable of understanding and discernment, he is to govern his conduct by using his freedom and reason, in obedience to the One who has entrusted everything to him.”
I take this to mean that man, endowed with reason and guided by faith, is to enact laws for the sake of his common good. When any such law runs counter to the natural law, the law is automatically rendered invalid. So long as the law remains an ordinance of reason not in opposition to the eternal law, it remains valid. So the burden of proof is not to show that the law is heavenly divined and therefore valid, but to show that it is reasoned by man and does not conflict with the natural law.
Would you have every law pass metaphysical muster?
April 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I agree with what SM has written. To that, I would add in support: CCC 1897-1927 and Romans 13:1-2 - subject, of course to the limitation which SM mentions that the law be oriented to the common good.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
superfluous man writes: “So the burden of proof . . .”
In otherwords, the burden of proof is on the less perfect to prove it is not infringed on by the more perfect. Which in turn is to turn subsidiarity on its head. As well as turning on its head the entire understanding of parental authority.
SM’s argument may typical modern American, but it has no basis in traditional Catholic thought beyond his recognizing that all law is by nature rational.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
further, citing the common good while not actually proving that a law properly applies to a true understanding of the common good, proves nothing
April 17th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
LTG: “In otherwords, the burden of proof is on the less perfect to prove it is not infringed on by the more perfect.”
Wrong. As St. Paul tells us, the laws of God are written on the hearts of men. I’m working on a horizontal level, not a vertical.
LTG: “SM’s argument may typical modern American.”
And Greece. And Rome. And so on and so forth.
LTG: “further, citing the common good while not actually proving that a law properly applies to a true understanding of the common good, proves nothing”
Nowhere did I state that this law is attuned to or contributes to the common law. I was simply parsing through your fallacious argument.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Superfluous man writes “. . . ”
The natural law in its relation to parantal authority is not immediately knowable, as say muder is, because the object of the science is remote in comparison to other objects of the natural law. So while it can be said that the law in such circumstance does fall under the natural law insofar as it pertains to the nature of man, it is not immediately knowable but subject to proof via the reason.
Thus, citing the catechism, or citing the common good, or citing the natural law does not in itself prove that the state can regulate the age of drinking of children when it if prior known that that oject is under parental authority. Thus if you int4nd to deny that which is prior know, you must provide proof beyond mere assertion.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Huh?
April 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
LTG, it seems that you are arguing that parental authority trumps man’s ability to adopt reasonable statutes for the purposes of governing society. If that is the case would you do away with statutory rape laws if the parents consented to the relationship? Would you allow ten year olds to marry if the parents consented? What about honor killings? At what point can the state regulate parental authority?
April 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
For your Thomistic argument to hold up, you would have to prove that there is a moral right to possess and drink alcohol. And as much as I wish there was such a right, there isn’t, because alcohol is not needful for survival, morality, or right living. There may be a legal right to alcohol, but that’s all it is, and is therefore only remotely subject to the moral law, and its regulation is primarily the operation of the positive law. (That’s 1st II, Q. 95, Art. 2-4, in my edition.)
The State has the authority to legislate regarding morally neutral subject matter (like the commerce in goods not necessary for life, such as intoxicating spirits,) and does so justly when it shows indirect connection to the moral law (in other words, it is primarily a function of the positive law.)
It suits the common good to regulate spirits (and hundreds of years of regulation can attest to this.) In particular, it serves the common good when the consumption of spirits in public is regulated. And, since the state can (a) show the law is framed for the common good, and (b) its subject matter is morally neutral, then the state can tell parents and kids when and where (and if) they can drink (just like they can tell you that the city park is closed on Sunday.)
St. Thomas also said that not all men are competent to make laws. Only lawful authority can regulate behavior within its sphere. And the sale and (public) consumption of intoxicating spirits are most assuredly within the sphere state regulation, not domestic regulation. That is why it is up to the state, not you, to decide when or if your children (or you, even) can go to the saloon or the liquor store and purchase and/or consume alcohol.
And that is due, in part, to the fact that such regulation is primarily an operation of the positive law- You could no more declare that your child can buy alcohol or drink in public than you could declare Prohibition.
I will concede that this law (the 21-year-old drinking age, that is) lies in a confused never-never land of operative positive law. Prior to the 1960’s, 21 was the age of majority in most states. Supposedly, the age of majority was lowered to 18 with the passage of the 26th amendment (and the legal recognition of contracts made by 18-year-olds.) It wasn’t until about 15 years later that the states passed a uniform drinking code that placed the drinking age above the age of majority. It could be argued that, considering the established bright line for legal adulthood, that denying access to alcohol to adults is arbitrary and capricious to the point of being unjust, and therefore amoral and no law at all, and that it would be more just to ban alcohol outright or to raise the age of majority back to 21 (rather than split it into two parts.)
(BTW, I turned 21 in a dry county, so it really wasn’t a big hairy moral question.)
April 18th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Well, welcome back WAC, nice attack. None of us took that tack. I don’t want to give you any flack, but we’ve felt your lack. Hopefully your new work is pleasant and providing copious amounts of jack.
April 19th, 2008 at 12:47 am
Karl,
That’s a fact!
April 19th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Doubt worry WAC, SM has picked up the slack. Even though a few of his posts are whack, he posts a lot and has the knack to pack ‘em in. Since he’s been back, he’s posted a stack.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Karl,
That has to end.
Thanks,
SM
April 19th, 2008 at 11:05 am
[…] reading Karl’s rhythmically challenged comments on “Kiddie Cocktails” I nominate him for number one on this list! Move over Rob Van […]
April 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
awb writes : “LTG, it seems that you are arguing that parental authority trumps man’s ability to adopt reasonable statutes for the purposes of governing society.”
Drinking is an act which falls under the category of prudential judgment, thus the question is: Whose prudential judgment shall rule? The parents? or the States?
Rape on the other hand is not a matter of prudential judgment.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Mr Wac writes : “The State has the authority to legislate regarding morally neutral subject matter (like the commerce in goods not necessary for life, such as intoxicating spirits,) and does so justly when it shows indirect connection to the moral law (in other words, it is primarily a function of the positive law.)”
Which interestingly enough puts the argument into the cultural sphere since “necessary for life” would obviously include common social life. Which is where I find the entire argument of state regulation of children to be problematic, such as in a culture where the local pub, or public park is the common meeting place for family social interaction.
The separation you make between public and private separates men from each other by causing men to not be able to act according to common social norm other than in the private setting of the home, and not in the more natural social setting at the local pub, or local park or other public setting when families gather.
We live in a society where men are becoming increasingly more isolated from there fellow men except for performing business and similar interaction, with the regulation of alcohol leading further to that isolation which destroy local communal life.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Mr Wac writes : “I will concede that this law (the 21-year-old drinking age, that is) lies in a confused never-never land ”
It lies in the culture, which is confused because the culture treat children as adults, and adults as children.
Is an 18 year old a child in our culture? Perhaps some are, but what of the girl who is well capable of being married at that age and thus capable of regulating her household.
Are to say that she is incapable of purchasing wine at the local pub because she lacks prudence to consume alcohol, but she is capable of regulating her household?
The problem with laws such as this is that they’re overly burdensome because they throw too wide a net because they attempt to regulate that which is better regulated at at a more local level, thus they violate subsidiarity because they attempt to regulate the local which is more capable of regulation of itself.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Was that really LTG, or Alasdair MacIntyre?