Contact
Subscribe


When I Grow Up, I Want To Be A Grownup

May 28, 2009
By Ken.
Law

I’ve been meaning to write about a modest proposal our friend TJIC floated over at his place. His premise: why not have a special category of adulthood, entry to which is strictly voluntary, that carries with it special rights and responsibilities? Here’s the idea:

I propose bifurcating current legal adulthood into two designations: “lesser adult” and “full adult”.

Lesser adults would get mortgage bailouts, credit card bailouts, could bail on all sorts of contracts if they find them distasteful, and, in general, would be treated somewhat as wards of the state.

Full adults would be able to sign contracts that the state actually enforces.

A lesser adult could opt, at any time, to become a full adult.

A full adult could opt, at any time, to become a lesser adult, but could not escape contracts that they’ve already signed.

Personally, I prefer “Grownup” for our new category.

Here’s some of the other rights and responsibilities of Grownups I would impose:

* Grownups can’t cite voluntary intoxication as a defense or mitigating factor in any civil or criminal suit. Grownups know that they chose to get plowed. In fact, if a grownup offers any defense to a criminal or civil matter excusing or justifying conduct based on diminished capacity, they would immediately lose grownup status.

* Cops don’t have to Mirandize grownups, because grownups are presumed to know their rights.

* Grownups are presumed as a matter of law to have read warning labels, contracts, and the fine print. There is no exception to the parol evidence rule for grownups. For the non-lawyers among you, that means that if the contract says “x”, and warns the reader that it contains all terms of the deal, and the grownup signed the contract, the grownup cannot later argue “oh, but they told me it was also y and z.”

* Grownups are presumed to have the knowledge of a high-school graduate with a B average. That includes civil, historical, and scientific knowledge. A grownup would be presumed to know, for instance, that dropping an electrical appliance in the bath could lead to electrocution, and could not complain that they were not warned of that. A grownup could never, like the successful plaintiff in Moran v. Faberge, claim that they should have been warned that pouring perfume on an open flame could be hazardous.

* Grownups would be strictly limited in the amount of mental suffering damages they could collect in a torts case.

* Grownups could sue for punitive damages, but because they recognize that such damages are to deter for the good of society, not to reward them, they would be compelled to donate such damages to charity.

As TJIC points out, most of us would choose to do business only with grown-ups.

More ideas about rights and responsibilities of “grownups”?

Edited to add: a good one from a commenter at TJIC:
* A grownup could get a prescription for non-FDA-approved drugs, but would not be able to sue if the drugs killed him.

Last 5 posts by Ken

42 Comments
Tags

41 Comments

  1. Mark  •  May 28, 2009 @2:18 pm

    What are the odds that the government wouldn’t reserve the right to demote you to non-grownup? And what are the odds that the standards for demotion would be understandable, reasonable, and fairly applied?

  2. Patrick  •  May 28, 2009 @2:47 pm

    The idea that grownups should be presumed to know their rights and obligations vis a vis the finer points of the tax code or environmental law is problematic. I don’t mean Wesley Snipes tax protest, but consider the case of Helio Castroneves, or certain executives of WR Grace.

    Would prosecutors who blow millions on a case like Castroneves or WR Grace be demoted to children, and lose their law licenses?

  3. Ken  •  May 28, 2009 @2:51 pm

    But Patrick, you’ll see I carefully avoided saying that. I said warning labels, contracts, and the fine print. I agree that no one can be assumed to know the tax code.

    That said, I would deprive grownups of the Cheek defense, under which sincere but unreasonable beliefs about tax law (like Mr. Snipes’) are a defense to tax evasion.

  4. Patrick  •  May 28, 2009 @2:53 pm

    But what about the prosecutors Ken?

    I don’t know of a single profession (other than politics) in which adults are allowed to waste millions without negative consequences.

  5. Ken  •  May 28, 2009 @2:57 pm

    Yes, I would hold prosecutors and lawyers in general to a higher standard, and demote them for such things.

  6. Bruce  •  May 28, 2009 @5:38 pm

    I’m struggling to see what the benefits are to being a grownup other than pride and the ability to deal with other grownups. The lesser adults are still going to have all their stupid shit going on and you will still be in the community pool that has to pay for their idiocy.

  7. Ken  •  May 28, 2009 @6:01 pm

    Bruce, the benefit would be that many businesses and individuals would only want to conduct transactions with grownups.

  8. Jack  •  May 28, 2009 @6:44 pm

    Bruce, Granted it is all just a grand thought experiment, but I am guessing a few benifits would include:
    - Automatic ginormous enhancement to credit score
    - Corresponding significantly lower APR and general ease of credit
    - Signifiantly lower insurance rates of all types (Life, Auto, Health, Business ets)
    - Full adult only admission to certain “high risk” places.
    - Reduced membership costs in many business, like health clubs
    - Special limited members access on dating sites.
    - Almost certain advantage in job seeking
    - Blog comments never subjected to moderation.

    Just off the top of my head.
    -

  9. Bruce  •  May 28, 2009 @6:44 pm

    Yes I realise that. It’s in the first sentence of my comment.

    Do you expect grownups to be the majority? or minority? The tone of the piece implies they will be the minority – but I may be misreading it. So it would seem that grownup to grownup would be a niche market. So apart from being able to shop in this niche market, which I doubt would cover the full spectrum of everything a grownup needs, what are the benefits?

  10. Ken  •  May 28, 2009 @6:46 pm

    But plenty of businesses target niches — like the relatively wealthy. The niche market of grownups may be more appealing because it presents lower risks to the businesses selling to it.

  11. Bruce  •  May 28, 2009 @6:59 pm

    Thanks Jack and I see some reasons why I don’t get it due to my cultural differences.

    eg. Credit score. Here in Australia one’s credit score starts at zero and can only get worse. Zero is a perfect credit record and missed payments etc. are recorded. So one either has an acceptable rating or a bad one. There is no building up ‘good’ credit points.

    As for insurance – you will still need to cover yourself for interactions with lesser adults you will still have to share your life with but I can see case for discounts there.

    Reduced membership cost for Health Clubs – Why? They provide a service for a price. Why would a grownup be cheaper? Or is this a subset of the insurance benefit?

    The idea of being able to flip the bird at nanny-state conditions appeals – but is it worth it?

  12. Ken  •  May 28, 2009 @7:13 pm

    A health club would be cheaper for a grownup because a grownup (1) would be held to the liability waiver in their sign-up contract, and (2) would be presumed to know that you can hurt yourself in a health club.

  13. Bruce  •  May 28, 2009 @7:21 pm

    So it is a subset of the insurance thing again.

  14. Jack  •  May 28, 2009 @7:50 pm

    I threw it in there on the fly. Maybe health club is not the best example, but I would think that virtually any activity with associated liablity would see a reduced risk from our imaginary full adult class.

    I think I see Bruce’s larger point, and indeed it was my first and strongest response as well: This full adulthood thing seems to come with a whole lot of negatives/restrictions: so what is the up side? I think that, rather than attempt to catalog a list of them, we would be better served simply considering the significant differences between minors and adults in the current scheme, and consider that the vast and significant differences in those classes would also be present between lesser and full adults.

    While I am tempted to dismiss the entire issue as pointless navel gazing, I think it does actually speak to a real issue we face in modern U.S. society, i.e., the nature of adult maturation and the often arbitrary timeline we place upon it. Consider: (almost all of these vary by US state, so YMMV)
    Religious coming of age: 13 or so, varies
    Drivers Permit: 15
    Drivers License: 16
    Expanded employment rights: 16
    Sexual freedom: 16
    Military service: 17 (parent permission) or 18
    Full employment rights: 18
    Voting rights/enfranchisement: 18
    Alcohol use: 21

    So clearly we as a society have bought into a graduated maturation to adulthood, despite our tendency to assume it all happens at 18. But what kind of distorted perspective puts alcohol use last on that list? And why does the list stop at 21? Aside from being able to rent a car (25), or run for certain very high political offices, there is no particular societal maturation beyond 21 years for alcohol use. Perhaps this is the middle ground for marijuana and other drug legalization. Just make it 24 or something.

  15. Bruce  •  May 28, 2009 @8:31 pm

    For comparisons – Australia

    Religious coming of age: 13 or so, varies
    Drivers Permit: 17
    Drivers License: 18
    Expanded employment rights: 18
    Sexual freedom: 18 (16 with other 16 year olds)
    Military service: 16 (parent permission – apprenticeship) or 18
    Full employment rights: 18
    Voting rights/enfranchisement: 18
    Alcohol use: 18

    A lot of magic happens on that 18th birthday.

  16. Joshua  •  May 28, 2009 @9:17 pm

    Wait, though. Ramification time – most childish or gullible adults are not going to think that they are childish and/or gullible, and will choose (what is for them) the non-optimal “Grownup status.” Furthermore, it would be in the best interest of all businesses to encourage all childish and/or gullible adults to choose Grownup status, so as to improve their margins.

    I think you would end up with an equilibrium where the childish/gullible would effectively subsidize the true grownups. It just seems a little bit selfish, because the true grownups are almost certainly going to prosper in any event.

  17. Griffin3  •  May 29, 2009 @8:20 am

    Now … how do we restrict procreation to the full adults? That could be a wonderful incentive … and solve a buttload of problems for full and lesser adults, both.

  18. Chris  •  May 29, 2009 @9:00 am

    I assume that companies would refuse to deal with non-grownups, but have a table where you could apply for grownup status right there and you would get free candy if you did. Effectively, everyone ends up in the grownup category.

  19. CrankyBeach  •  May 29, 2009 @10:02 am

    Hmm. The whole thing sounds like the plot of a futuristic novel or movie….

    (I like it.)

  20. Ken  •  May 29, 2009 @10:04 am

    Chris, I think there would have to be some sort of requirement of a grownup ceremony where your rights and obligations are read to you and you affirm them. No sign-ups at the candy store.

    Plus, I think that if you abandon being a grownup, you can’t sign up again for 10 years, or something.

  21. Mark Kernes  •  May 29, 2009 @10:11 am

    How about: Full grownups get to read and watch anything they want, including hardcore porn and even obscenity, trade or sell it amongst themselves, and even mail it to each other?

  22. Ben  •  May 29, 2009 @10:46 am

    CrankyBeach:

    It IS the plot of a sci-fi novel — Heinlen’s Battlefield Earth (in the book more than the movie). You weren’ a citizen until you served in the military, and couldn’t vote etc. until you completed your service. Some adults chose not to become citizens, and were denied certain rights.

  23. Ken  •  May 29, 2009 @10:50 am

    Ben:

    One million rabid Heinlein fans just vowed painful death for you for associating Battlefield Earth with Heinlein. I’m pretty sure you meant Starship Troopers.

    (The movie was clever because it satirized Heinlein’s a-little-close-to-the-fascist-wing-of-libertarianism book)

  24. Chris  •  May 29, 2009 @11:42 am

    Oh, sure, and they’d find some way to get that ceremony executed extremely quickly at a credit card application table in a college student union.

    Then, of course, someone would sue claiming that they hadn’t been adequately informed of what they were agreeing to, and eventually someone would win a lawsuit and the whole thing would unravel anyway.

  25. Patrick  •  May 29, 2009 @1:06 pm

    No, it isn’t my idea, but I can speak for Ken here. Accession to Growunuphood would have to be like applying for a concealed carry permit: Application at the county courthouse or city hall; reading a book; taking a class from a certified, licensed instructor; filing of a detailed questionnaire and oath; and a lengthy waiting period.

    In short, the applicant would be encouraged not to do it.

  26. Chris  •  May 29, 2009 @2:14 pm

    Then you would draw a lawsuit from the same sort of people who sue over requirements for photo ID at the polls.

  27. Charles  •  May 30, 2009 @7:50 am

    Surely the most important detail, not yet mentioned (unless I missed it), is that grownups should not be taxed to support the foolishness of non-grownups (e.g. the cost of treatment for diseases brought about by high-fat diet or cigarette smoking). Grownups should also enjoy discounted prices on products where manufacturers have been named in liability suits by non-grownups.

    The hopelessly theoretical quality of this discussion is a bit depressing and to me illustrates just how broadly systemic the problem has become.

  28. tmitsss  •  Jun 5, 2009 @6:55 am

    Grownup will be presumed to know what they are eating, and exempt from nagging by Government Nannys.

    Question can Grownups get divorced? Can they ask for alimony?

  29. anonymouse  •  Jun 5, 2009 @9:41 am

    Back to procreation. That’s where the real benefit would come in. Only grownups should be allowed to raise children. So, to follow on the sci-fi theme, all lesser adults would be chemically spayed or neutered until such time as they are approved for full adulthood. BTW, grownups wouldn’t use or share porn, wouldn’t see much benefit to having a higher credit score because they wouldn’t need to borrow money. Also, they wouldn’t need to conceal their weapons.

  30. bw  •  Jun 5, 2009 @5:32 pm

    I came up with a similar idea, except the benefits side is much stronger and there’s a barrier to entry component to make sure grownups are qualified for the designation.

    One would need to pass MY high school graduation exam in order to:

    drink or use drugs
    drive
    vote
    own guns
    breed

    The exam would require one to:

    -Diagram sentences
    -Demonstrate comprehension of literature, the setting of which is removed from one’s personal experience by at least 1 continent and 2 centuries.
    -Demonstrate numerancy to the level of trigonometry
    -Demonstrate cause and effect understanding of at least 5 major historical events separated by intervals of at least a century each.
    -Demonstrate qualitative and quantitative competence in 2 or more natural sciences
    -Demonstrate understanding of the Constitution, separation of powers and the roles of the three branches, the differences between a democracy and a republic, both sides of the federalism debate, how a bill becomes a law, and how our system differs from a parliamentary one.
    -Demonstrate knowledge about nutrition, infection control, the difference between bacterial and viral infections, the difference between pain, inflammation, and infection, how to take a temperature, and basic first aid (this one would do a lot to curb healthcare costs)
    -Understand the basic underpinnings of capitalism, including the relationship of supply and demand to price.

  31. Michael M. Butler  •  Jun 10, 2009 @12:33 am

    Ken: The movie was clever? Try watching it with Verhoeven’s voiceover–that should disabuse you. The movie was, according to Verhoeven’s own words (sure, I know, what does he know about it?), intended to show that “War makes fascists of us all.” Full stop. Not clever at all. A polemical bludgeon.

  32. Tom Lawrence  •  Jun 10, 2009 @10:08 am

    It’s kind of entertaining how this comment thread started out from an amusing vaguely libertarian idea and devolved from there into a eugenic authoritarian nightmare.

  33. Ken  •  Jun 10, 2009 @10:12 am

    Well, Tom, that sort of thing is bound to happen. Naturally people commenting here don’t agree with everything I say just because they comment, and I don’t agree with everything they say just because they comment here.

    For an example of disagreement on some of these “grown-up” principles, check out the argument in the comments of Patrick’s recent post about HOA regulations, here.

  34. Tom Lawrence  •  Jun 10, 2009 @3:11 pm

    Odd, I feel as if I’ve been told off, when I was just trying to make an amused observation rather than an actual complaint of any sort.

    Did I do something wrong?

  35. Ken  •  Jun 10, 2009 @3:13 pm

    No, no. Though I wasn’t sure which way you were going with that, that was no telling off. If you are told off, Patrick shouts and swears a lot and I get oddly sweaty.

  36. Ken  •  Jun 10, 2009 @3:14 pm
    Ken: The movie was clever? Try watching it with Verhoeven’s voiceover–that should disabuse you. The movie was, according to Verhoeven’s own words (sure, I know, what does he know about it?), intended to show that “War makes fascists of us all.” Full stop. Not clever at all. A polemical bludgeon.

    I am forced to admit, humbly, that I have never watched Starship Troopers with the director’s commentary turned on.

  37. Patrick  •  Jun 10, 2009 @3:18 pm

    Hardly Tom. You’re one of our most valued commenters, and I know Ken agrees. Because I’ve had difficulties with getting people to understand me through the medium, I’ll add that I say that without irony or sarcasm.

    Ken’s observation, though, is a good one. Looking at the comment thread in question as cited by Ken, one wouldn’t know I’m a libertarian or that I believe firmly in freedom of contract.

    Ken’s comment was aimed at me, not at you. We do that from time to time. We use comments from non-authors to sling benevolent stones at one another. We have inside jokes.

  38. Tom Lawrence  •  Jun 10, 2009 @4:59 pm

    Okay, all good.

    If I were to take my amused coment anywhere, it would probably be in a slippery-slope type direction about whether some government intervention leads inevitably to more until we’re being asked to report on other people’s dustbin contents.

    But I’m not sure that a desperately useful place to take it. There are other, nicer places.

  39. hist_ed  •  Jul 10, 2009 @9:04 am

    “BTW, grownups wouldn’t use or share porn, wouldn’t see much benefit to having a higher credit score because they wouldn’t need to borrow money.”

    Grownups wouldn’t judge others’ sex lives. Grownups also would understand the benefits of market based capitalism.

  40. Rey  •  Jul 11, 2009 @2:02 pm

    How about, citizens and residents. If you are a citizen you can vote, enter contracts, bypass nany state laws (drugs, cigarretes, CAFE standards, HOA rules, union requirements, etc) and serve in the political class. In order to become a citizen you have to serve 2 years in the military or police officer / firefighter / EMS, etc. You also have to pass a ctizenship test that includes civics, law, us history, governement, basic economics (balancing a checkbook to writting a bussiness plan and meeting payroll), reading comprehention, mathematics.
    If you are a resident you can not vote, or buy property (you can lease or rent but not own), you are subject to all the nany state regulations and you may not work in government is any function. You would be exempt from self responsibility, so you would be elegible for wealfare, unemployment, medicare, social security and a liberal arts education thru masters. You can not lobby the government as you are a subject equivalent to a teenager. You may work anywhere you wish except for socialy critical professions (doctors, nurses, police, lawyers, teachers, etc), unless you are building credits towards becoming a citizen.

  41. R.C.  •  Jul 11, 2009 @4:45 pm

    Being a grownup should be a qualifying requirement for voting rights, and for holding any elective office or office of trust in the United States.

    And one should be required to pass the American citizenship test for naturalized citizens, to qualify for grownup status in the U.S.

1 Trackback

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>