| TH
 E
LI
 B
 E
 R
 T
 A
 R
 I
 A
 N
 EN
 T
 E
 R
 P
 R
 I
 S
 E
 I
 s
 s
 u
 e
  40
 | L. Neil Smith's
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
 Number 40, July 9, 1998
 
 
 
Untitled EssayFirst Place Winner, Young Adult Category
Jason Mahoney (age 21) 
[email protected]
 
Special to The Libertarian Enterprise
 
         The youth of America are the least politically powerful 
demographic in the nation.  Since the majority of it does not have the 
vote, it cannot easily influence state policy.  Therefore, it should 
surprise no one that the government restricts the liberty of its most 
defenseless citizens, the young, the most. 
Once one realizes this problem, one must find a solution.  In the 
past, and at the present moment, many crusaders for the liberty of the 
young have argued that the young must make their voices heard to 
representatives.  While the authors of such intentions argue in good 
faith, such a course of action is not the most productive.  Simply 
put, representatives do not care about the opinions of those who can't 
vote, for they hold no direct power in elections.  Thus, in order to 
preserve the liberty of the young, the young must convince the voters 
of their communities to elect those candidates who will draft policy 
accordingly.
 One of the best ways for the young to defend their rights is 
through the market.  While minors may not hold much electoral power, 
they wield great economic authority.  Most minors have high levels of 
disposable money:  most have an income, yet their parents pay for 
almost all of their necessities. With this reserve of spending money, 
the young hold the power to indirectly influence the law.
 For example, imagine an owner of a local pizza shop who donates 
funds to an organization that lobbies the city to create a curfew on 
minors.  Once one minor discovers this connection, he or she should 
publicize this information through as many means as possible:  the 
media, conversation, etc.  As more minors discover this, more 
individuals will frequent other pizza establishments.  In addition to 
information dissemination, vocal economic boycotts should be organized 
against the hypothetical shop until the owner ceases to donate to such 
causes.  Further, the converse should hold;  minors should conduct 
business with those merchants known to support liberty.
 However, the fight for liberty should entail more than financial 
transactions.  The young can attempt to win over as many of their 
elders as possible through argumentation. For example, whenever a 
governing body considers implementing legislation that would further 
restrict the liberty of the young, minors are not powerless just 
because they cannot vote.  In response to such state action, the young 
should remind their neighbors that if the state were to contemplate 
such action against another segment of society, e.g. the elderly, 
ethnic minorities, or women, the proposal would never even make it to 
a vote.  When presenting arguments, the defenders of equality before 
the law should make their beliefs as widely publicized as possible. 
Thus, regional papers are superior mediums than high school papers.
 Too many young libertarians are too idealistic in their proposed 
methods of shaping legislation.  When a high school student writes a 
letter to a representative and demonstrates a firm knowledge of Hayek 
and Jefferson, the representative may not care.  What wins the 
attention of representatives is votes.  Thus, were young libertarians 
to remain pragmatic and focus all of their efforts on getting voters 
to vote for liberty, representatives would start to care.
 
 
 
 Next 
to advance to the next article, or 
  Previous 
to return to the previous article, or 
  Table of Contents 
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 40, July 9, 1998. 
 |