Headline March 17, 2018/ ''' RIGHTS TO LIMITS '''

''' RIGHTS TO LIMITS '''

''WE THE PEOPLE, ARE IN CHARGE of this country.'' And then Wayne LaPierre is rarely accused of progressiveism. But when-

Mr. LaPierre, the leader of the National Rifle Association. addressed the Conservative Political  Action Conference some two weeks ago, he invoked the Second Amendment in much the same way -

That a significant portion of the left has long spoken of the rights it values.

According to this conception, rights are zones of personal autonomy where the individual owes NO explanation and the community has no jurisdiction.

This manner of thinking about rights is a serious barrier to reasonable regulations of firearms.

The N.R.A, virtually claims the mantle of the Constitution, but the founders who framed it had a far richer view in which the individual rights were subject to considerations of the common good.

There may be a good reason not to regulate firearms further, but the individual's absolute claim that his or her guns are nobody's business is not one of them.

To even make this assertion is an illusion of what the legal scholar and diplomat Mary Anne Glendon calls ''the illusion of absoluteness,'' an idea that is hostile to the possibility of political community.

All rights have limits. The question is who determines them. For the framers of the Constitution, the answer was that the people do.

One of the earliest American assertions of rights, the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties, delineated rights against everything from banishment to dismemberment but subjected them to the regulation by the legislature.

The community to take these actions only according to rules known in advance and equally applicable to all.

The essence of rights in this early understanding was the rule of law - as propounded by the community - not the isolation of the individual.....

THE TEENAGE CRUSADE FOR gun control has given new energy to an idea that I once supported fervently : Voting rights for 16 year-olds.

My support peaked when I was that age myself; I thought that lowering the voting age was literally the least that adults could do acknowledge that their teenage kids were citizens, too, rather-

Than a disenfranchised class imprisoned in classrooms and by absurd drinking-age-restrictions and.........well, anyway-

I had pretty strong views on the issue, let's just put it that way, and also about the ridiculously early time my parents expected me home on weekend nights.

Now, that I am father, I have equally strong views about a different way representing minors in our electoral system.

Namely, I think my wife and I should be able to cast extra votes on behalf of our three small children, until they're old enough to choose for themselves between the presidential candidates of Hope Hicks and Chelsea Clinton in 2032.

The term for this sort of system is ''Demeny Voting,'' named for the demographer Paul Demeny, who proposed the idea in 1986 to address the threat of gerontocracy -in which-

Fertility declines and life expectancy increases and the political power of the elderly strangles future-orientated policymaking.

Since then it's been debated in low fertility nations like Japan and Hungary, finding champions among demography obsessed conservatives, but also among liberals concerned about a retiree dominated politics and the just representation of the young.

Of course, under a Demeny system that representation would be achieved by proxy, a novel feature for a representative democracy - but on the spectrum of powers we necessarily grant to parents, hardly that dramatic of a step.

The simplest mechanism would be to assign half a vote to each custodial parent; presumably single parents with full custody could exercise the full franchise for each child, and-

Assigning rights in custody disputes and polyamorous households would provide a mild stimulus for the legal profession. 

In the U.S., higher fertility rates track with support for Republicans, but single mothers are more likely to vote for Democrats - as are recent immigrants, a relatively high-fertility group.

So Demeny voting might change the balance of power within each coalition rather than benefiting either party overall :

Hispanics and low income families would have more clout within the Democratic Party, and the Hannity-obsessed elderly would code influence within the G.O.P to the mini-van driving middle-aged.

Both shifts would be positive.

The Honor and Serving of the latest Operational Research on Life, Living and Progress continues. And with many thanks to researchers and authors, Greg Weiner and Ross Douthat.

With respectful dedication to the Leaders, Parents, Students, Professors and Teachers of the world. See Ya all ''register'' on !WOW! - the World Students Society and Twitter- !E-WOW! - the Ecosystem 2011:

''' Curious - !WOW! '''

Good Night and God Bless

SAM Daily Times - the Voice of the Voiceless