Child or adults

[Dumplins]

Who is better to run this world children or adults look at the difference
between
Adults && Children

[Lady Takara]

Adults. We who are children are not very 'mature' yet. And those who are, are not always very popular. If we could get 'younger' adults those in their late 20's to 30's, who understand where we are coming from.

But the problem is, it doesn't matter. Either way we are screwed. Why ? If you read plato's republic you'd understand partially.

If the leader is not wise and mature, if they do not do what is [you]good[/you] for the people, then they shouldn't be the leader. While Bush is not my favorite President in the world, there are many leaders who have had to make tough decisions. It is the course of human nature and the world. Children do not have enough knowledge to even be close to being a responsible leader. There are a few exceptions. I do not mean this to an insult to anyone on this forum, but if there had to be a hand-picked President from the forum, I would pick someone who is already the staff. While I do not know all of you, but most of you do not have the qualities that will make you a responsible adult. Even as I am about to turn 18 I am still learning what I should be doing as an adult.

I heard about that show though that was going to have kids rule themselves. Of course, I wouldn't mind a "child" who is in their late teens, because I know a few who are extremely responsible and even a few who could run an entire household by themselves. These are the people who I generally call my friends anyways.

So practially, neither. Many people are unfit to be a leader, but there is a select few. For an example, I would never be good in an army. I just don't have the heart to hurt someone.

[Dumplins]

I know but if they were younger and wiser would their be war

[Lady Takara]

hydrokinesis said:

I know but if they were younger and wiser would their be war

Again it's all human nature. Read Book 1 of Plato's Republic. You see, the more elaborate life is, the more chances of war. When life is simple, when you live day to day, like the men in the Ice Age did, you don't have time for war. It was only after humans settled down and began to claim land that war happened.

Even if people were raised in a peaceful culture there isn't a guarantee that someone won't turn out to be a radical. To use Chrisanity for an example, look at Lucifer.

[stolide]

Yeah Plato! I read that the other day, and pretty good.

[JediKaren]

Stolide, if you are going to post on this thread you need to debate, not comment.

[stolide]

Okay I think adults would be better because they have more experiance.

[leethal]

Adults know more, children are more pure. (i can't say purer , can I ? sorry.)
Still, no one could rule the world flawlessly.

[brandonslau]

there is a show called kid nation where they let kids run a town or something just kids no adults.

[sunspot]

That would be cool and much better if we run are own town

[leethal]

that's almost called anarchy.

[Zangetsu]

If kids were in charge there would be mor war going on. Most all kids fight for the most trivial thing, such as: who gets what hot wheels car, "I wanna be player 1", and so on.

[Dumplins]

yeah but they also know how to share and if their were kids are age then it would be much better cause we know what to do and not to do and whats foolish especially fighting over religion or gas

[ismavatar]

I watched a few episodes of Kid Nation. It's not a very accurate estimate of what a child-run nation would be like, because there is 1 adult who allocates the money based on a class system, and uses competitions to determine who gets what class. There is also a council of kids who is in charge of running the place, and they frequently consult a journal of adults who ran the city before them.

Also, be careful with your usage of "Anarchy". Anarchy is an actual political term in which structure actually arises. This is because when people are fending for themselves, they start to team up with each other to ward off enemies. It then usually comes down to companies ("firms") or institutions serving the people, and the result is a very organized society, far from the chaos that everyone associates with Anarchy - even though it is still Anarchy. In fact, many political philosophies that we use today, such as Liberalism and Realism, begin by asserting that humans are naturally inclined to anarchy, and this is not just kids, but mostly focused on adults.

One of the wonderful things about kids is that they are great at seeing things that adults so often miss out on, and rethink things without the bias that adults so often have. Consider for a moment the late 1600's and early 1700's, where we had something going on amongst the adults called the Witchhunts. Now imagine if a child were to step in and say "why?"...
Or better yet, if there were a child-run country, would they be hunting witches like their adult sister-countries? Or maybe they don't even know what a witch is.



Do give me a little slack here, seeing as this argument has been very one-sided so far, I figured I'd play the devil's advocate. Personally I don't think children would be capable of running their own country, let alone the world. But I'm here to fight ignorance.

[neopsychic]

admin said:

Stolide, if you are going to post on this thread you need to debate, not comment.

Says the person who comments on another's comment
Irony is beautiful isn't it?

Back to the topic: I think that first we would have to define what age a kid is. I would say the age between 7-10 is a kid. 11-13 is a Tween. 14-17 a teenager. 18+ An adult. Keep in mind this is relative to the US school systems and US law.

A kid would not be best suited to run the country. Some teenagers might be, but it would be very hard to find capable people. I agree with ismavatar, not only with what he stated but because most kids believe what their parents teach them. For example, kids through teenagers commonly have the same political views as their parent. (Not sure if that is a fact but I would guess it is true often.)