What should the age of Majority be. ie. the voting age or the age of civil partnership consent.

I think fixing the age of majority to a biological age does not take into account individual qualifications, a relict from a less civilized, educated era. Were it up to me, I'd instead have some sort of test or exam to determine majority- perhaps linked to the completion of nationally mandated education, or maybe after the completion of a citizenship course. It really is important to have a population that is well-educated in the workings of politics for such a massive endeavor as Asgardia to succeed.

Regards, InsanityOS

deleted

I believe age shouldn't be a factor as far as work or exams go. I think that if you're highly qualified but young (say 15) then you should work how you want. Of course it goes without saying that everyone should be treated equally regardless of age with respect and dignity.

I don't have any experience in test making or behavioral science but I can try to create a test that measures for information accuracy and stress. Since it is a voting test it could be a test devoted to voting history and thought processes throughout history. (All countries.) The test would have no time limit. (To make the testers comfortable and not rush through.) What the test takers are not told is that they are in fact being timed. (On the rate of correct answers and the time taken, along with the amount of wrong answers) There is also another factor the tester are not told about: stress. There are two psychiatrists in the room. However one is an aggressor. His/Her job is during the test when the takers are preoccupied with the exam. The second psychiatrist is there to observe the takers behavior during the aggressors activity and to cue the aggressor to back down where necessary. (His/Her job will be to bring the takers close to their breaking point.) As the testers take their exam, (Say 20 mins pass) the aggressor begins to agitate the takers. Again, just enough to rile them but not too much. (They still need to finish the exam.) Afterwards, the takers are taken to a secondary room and given the actual objective of the test. As I've mentioned before I don't have any background in behavioral science or on making tests but if we are to make a space colony, I would want to make sure that it's citizen remain calm during tense situations and think out solutions logically.

Twenty-five. The age of majority isn't only the age when full adult rights are granted, but the age at which a person becomes legally liable for their actions and 25 errs on the side of caution for the latter. I could also point to a lot statistics for higher rates of dangerous, violent, or criminal behaviors among people under 25. We won't have the luxury to tolerate teenagers dying in car wrecks on a space station.

As long as entering the military and getting all types inebriated are the same age as this then I'm fine with it.

I agree that 25 is a safe limit for personal responsibility.

The age of majority is correct in 25, but they must be criminally responsible from the age of 14. Greatings.

The age of majority is correct in 25, but they must be criminally responsible from the age of 14.

We do not expect you to uphold a contract until 25, but we expect you to be responsible for all non-economic wrongdoing at 14? I do not follow.

There still has to be some mechanism to deal with juvenile crime regardless of the age of majority.

"I agree that 25 is a safe limit for personal responsibility." I am in complete agreement with this line of thinking. I would add that between ages 16-25 citizens are given gradually more rights and responsibilities with the end goal of full standing in the community at 25. Upon reaching 25 citizens should have an absolutely clear understanding of their obligations to Asgardia and Asgardia's responsibilities to them.

A compromise might be more effective; full voting rights at 25, but with a voluntary means-test for anyone over 18. If you can prove you have enough understanding, and care enough, about the subject to research it, then you can win rights. Might get around the 'roughly old enough' vagaries.

i agree with 25 but then i also think that there shouldn't be age, it should be done to common sense of the person, also that the vote is their choice to make if they want to, but they must know what they are voting for and the outcome of the either side of the vote.

How do you prove something qualitatively subjective? How do you apply such a test equally to all citizens? Is the scoring interpreted by a human or measured by a machine?

Age may be arbitrary, but the arbitrariness is a known variable to everyone.

It's the basic flaw with democracy, either you hope the populace is well informed about the voting topic, or you try to manage ignorance with means testing. Most discussions don't get further than that due to the worries about means tests (see historical black voting-rights issues in the US), and that it runs contrary to modern definitions of democracy; everyone gets a vote.

It wouldn't be hard to create means tests, say bring in three independent teams to build a questionnaire aimed at basic understanding, and have them work it out. Removing corruption will always be an issue though, and gerrymandering via this process would be valuable to politicians.