A Civilization of Adult Children

The concept of the age of majority has been rendered meaningless through the infantilization of an entire generation.

How childish our society has become.

It is so debased and divorced from reality that people argue to teach tender age children about concepts beyond their ability to understand and yet, people who should be considered adults execute kindergarten level tantrums.

I’m thinking about the recent reaction of students and administration to a conservative judge speaking at Stanford.

My maternal grandparents were married, starting a family, and working their own small farm at the ages of 18 and 17 and here we witness 23 year old law students, who have not graduated, much less passed the bar, shouting down U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan because his words “deny the humanity of people."

What an embarrassment – actually, beyond embarrassment, it is a threat to the American system of jurisprudence to have such a weak, “speech is violence” indoctrinated, and risk averse pool of lawyers entering the legal ecosystem.

Of risk, Ray Bradbury said, “Living at risk is jumping off the cliff and building your wings on the way down.”

German author, scientist and philosopher Johann Wolfgang von Goethe noted the paradox of risk when he wrote: “The dangers of life are infinite, and among them is safety.”

Hellen Keller said, ““Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.”

Recognition of risk is a concept as old as life itself. The philosophy that the greater the risk, the sweeter the reward is a colloquialism that while not a guarantee, is one generally accepted to be accurate. Businesses evaluate decisions on a “risk/reward” curve, and risk “premiums” are paid to compensate for the chance of loss.

Webster defines risk as:

“The possibility of loss or injury: peril, someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard, a: the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract; also: the degree of probability of such loss b: a person or thing that is a specified hazard to an insurer c: an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source <war risk>, the chance that an investment (as a stock or commodity) will lose value.”

When evaluated on a tactical level, risk is a negative concept – it implies the possibility of loss.

Individuals must deal with risk every minute of every day – in some cities, just setting foot outside the front door poses significant risk.

Something I have been considering lately, given the rise in violent crime due to the hatred directed toward police are these questions:

• Where does the individual’s right to accept risk conflict with a government’s responsibility to protect that individual from risk?

• Does the government even have that responsibility?

• Is there an inverse relationship between the mitigation of risk and freedom?

• At what point are people freely expected to accept the risks that are necessary and inherent in life?

There was a time when risk assumption began when an individual reached the age of “majority”. Majority, in legal terms, is the threshold of adulthood as it is conceptualized and recognized or declared in law. It is the chronological moment (generally falling between the ages of 18 to 21) when a minor ceases to legally be considered a child and assumes control over their persons, actions, and decisions, thereby terminating the legal control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over and for them.

Now it seems the “age of majority” concept is no longer operational - nobody is ever expected to be an adult and accept life’s risks.

One of the hallmarks of modern “progressivism” is the idea that somehow the mere implementation of “progressive” collectivist policies will alleviate risk to some group. Their vision is that a world without risk prevents persecution or oppression of people who won’t accept risk by those who do. “Progressives” believe in “zero sum” games – that one cannot succeed unless they diminish another - and that isn’t “fair”.

This concept fits well in the ethos of those who are true believers in “progressivism” as well as those who are simply assuaging guilt of some sort or seek a feeling of self-importance or smug superiority over their fellow citizens. In a society that was founded on self-reliance, self-determination, independence and freedom where opportunities are equal, how is a movement like this kept alive?

You manufacture some sort of risk, persecution, or oppression.

You create the concept that there are too many risks for the individual to bear so the government must intervene to “protect” you from complexities that you can’t possibly comprehend, understand, or prepare for as an individual…all the while perpetuating those same complexities. You use identity and race to play off social and economic classes against each other.

You convince the citizenry that there are crises so big that all must sacrifice some of their freedoms and treasure to resolve.

Totalitarian movements always feature this type of monstrous risk/class envy proposition to stay alive. They sell their intrusion into private life and control over the citizens as the removal of risk. They tell you that you aren’t responsible for yourself because you just aren’t capable of understanding. The excuse for the student loan “crisis” isn’t that policies led to loans to people who didn’t have the capacity to repay; it was that the evil banks took advantage of people who didn’t understand the complex paperwork.

It is demeaning and offensive when you think about it…but unbelievably, people are buying this lie about themselves.

Freedom means accepting and defeating the risks of life, not having collective government sand off the rough edges for us, for when that happens, we pay for that “protection” with our freedom.