Not necessarily; there may be objective measures of ability to consent that we can appeal to, without relying on whim or a rule like a strict age limit. Let’s take Gotlucky’s post as a jumping off point:
True enough.
We do in fact agree. I used the term ‘minor’ without qualifying that I consider the application of that term would be decided in a different manner in an autarchic republic than what most states do these days.
In another thread, I’ve suggested three potential rubrics for determining whether someone should be considered an adult with full power over themselves or not:
First is passage into puberty, second is demonstration that one can care for themselves by complete financial self-support, third is sufficient maturity to have the ability to understand the consequences of consent. Any one of these alone or in combination could be sufficient. I think there could be some kind of family ritual in a sense, where the parent gives a child complete control over their life–you are now an adult, type of thing. And also the idea that a kid could sue to remove his parents’ right to make decisions for them should they feel themselves mismanaged.
I think we’ve tended to use the ‘age 18’ rubric because it applies quite broadly. Some kids may be able to take care of themselves by 13, some much later.
Rather than say any of those is definitive, I would leave it up to individual jurisdictions to decide what rubric they want to use and let the competition of ideas bear fruit. In a voluntaryist society, that sort of flexibility is primary. The whole point is not to force another’s way of life on other people.