The Horrible Discrimination Of Not Allowing 16 Years Olds To Vote

The Horrible Discrimination Of Not Allowing 16 Years Olds To Vote

Listen to the podcast at YouTube, Bitchute, or Gab.

“See that man? He has the most discriminating tastes.”

“I’ll call the DIE police and have him arrested!”

Equality is the mind killer: nothing is more corrosive than egalitarianism. The belief in Equality, as I often say, led to the first sin. The first human sin. And ye shall be as gods. Eve desired Equality.

And why should we not be the equal of God! Think of the mighty disparity between him and us. I ask you: is that fair? This unbalanced power dynamic can only be because of discrimination.

What used to be a lovely useful, positive word has been transmogrified and blackened by Equality into its opposite. It is now ugly, poisonous and entirely negative. It is used as a weapon, to remind the hearer that the blessed state of Equity has not yet been reached, and that you should feel guilty about it. Once your awareness has been raised about a disparity, you are morally obligated to act to remove it.

Don’t think so? Then read this headline: “New Zealand [Supreme] court rules voting age of 18 is discriminatory.


Why, and so it is. Older, soberer rulers discriminated against 16 and 17 year olds, reasoning that these teens should not be allowed to vote because, though there will surely be the rare exception, most would be too immature to know the consequences of their actions.

But that was the old use of discrimination. New Zealand’s top court used the new definition.

The case, which has been going through the courts since 2020, was bought by advocacy group Make It 16, which wants the age lowered to include 16 and 17 year olds.

The Supreme Court found that the current voting age of 18 was inconsistent with the country’s Bill of Rights, which gives people a right to be free from age discrimination when they have reached 16…

“This is history,” said Make It 16 co-director Caeden Tipler, adding: “The government and parliament cannot ignore such a clear legal and moral message. They must let us vote.”

It’s all there. Every error and bad argument and “moral message” that flows from Equality. The same arguments and errors were used here in the once United States to amend the very Constitution itself, more than once, in pursuit of Equality and the quashing of discrimination with regard to voting. The known experience with that in the USA did not deter New Zealand.

It must be obvious—or, it is to us, but perhaps not to supporters of 16 year olds voting—that this court’s finding discriminates against 15 year olds. It is a disparity. It is unfair. And shouldn’t all wrongs be righted, come what may?

When that awareness is raised to those who allowed 16 year olds to vote, they will realize they have no good arguments to bar 15 year olds. It is an arbitrary line.

In New Zealand, the 16 year olds were justified by a tenuous connection to the country’s other laws, which mentioned the 16 year mark. But that was clearly post hoc reasoning. They were looking for an excuse, any excuse.

The proof of that is easy, and is in this headline, obviously not from New Zealand, but from here: “Boston City Council moves to lower voting age for municipal elections“.

The City Council voted 9-4 Wednesday to lower the voting age for Boston elections.

The measure would allow 16 and 17-year-old residents to vote in municipal elections. It would not change any voting requirements at the state or federal level.

There is no special laws in Boston that mention 16 years as some sort of special marker. They are doing this because others are doing this. Because once a disparity is noticed by one set of elites under the spell of Equality, the other sets are quick to acknowledge it.

This isn’t new, this acknowledgement of a horrible discrimination. Experts years ago were saying, “The thing is, we don’t really have a good reason not to allow 16-year-olds to vote. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite—that enfranchising 16-year-olds would be good for them and good for our democracy.”

Our democracy.

There is nothing special about that discriminatory number of 16: it is a fad, a number around which to coalesce. Because 16 is still discriminatory, an inescapable fact, the push to lower must come.

And already has: “…children are disenfranchised. Children’s rights are not adequately recognized and they have a reduced political voice in setting social priorities.”

Part of this is representational voting, allowing parents more votes because of kids, which makes a kind of sense.

But part is also this: Votes for children! Why we should lower the voting age to six.

And this, from the Washington Post: “Allow kids to vote? Some adults in Germany think it would be the right thing to do.”

Alas, six discriminates against 5 year olds.

Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email:, and please include yours so I know who to thank.


  1. JDaveF

    I’m all in favor of enfranchising minors. Why stop at infants – let the unborn vote!!!

  2. Pk

    I agree. The dead have been voting for years. Unborn souls should get the chance also.

  3. Hagfish Bagpipe

    If they let women vote why not five-year-olds?

  4. Vermont Crank

    In a sensible country married fathers would have the same number of votes as the number of children he has whereas a bachelor and a sister would have only one vote each.

    If one thinks about this for only a few minutes it begins to make sense.

  5. Vermont Crank

    spinster, not sister

  6. El Koraco

    Briggs, you have started attracting quite a crowd. My favorite is this sister spinster dude.

  7. John B()

    Vermont Crank

    Only “In tact” or “widowed” families apply?

    As you say spinsters (or unmarried) count as one

  8. To quote Mark Knopfler: In the meantime I’m cleaning my gun.

  9. Kevin

    Ayn Rand said something similar about equality…

    Egalitarianism means the belief in the equality of all men. If the word “equality” is to be taken in any serious or rational sense, the crusade for this belief is dated by about a century or more: the United States of America has made it an anachronism—by establishing a system based on the principle of individual rights. “Equality,” in a human context, is a political term: it means equality before the law, the equality of fundamental, inalienable rights which every man possesses by virtue of his birth as a human being, and which may not be infringed or abrogated by man-made institutions, such as titles of nobility or the division of men into castes established by law, with special privileges granted to some and denied to others. The rise of capitalism swept away all castes, including the institutions of aristocracy and of slavery or serfdom.

    But this is not the meaning that the altruists ascribe to the word “equality.”

    They turn the word into an anti-concept: they use it to mean, not political, but metaphysical equality—the equality of personal attributes and virtues, regardless of natural endowment or individual choice, performance and character. It is not man-made institutions, but nature, i.e., reality, that they propose to fight—by means of man-made institutions.

    Since nature does not endow all men with equal beauty or equal intelligence, and the faculty of volition leads men to make different choices, the egalitarians propose to abolish the “unfairness” of nature and of volition, and to establish universal equality in fact—in defiance of facts. Since the Law of Identity is impervious to human manipulation, it is the Law of Causality that they struggle to abrogate. Since personal attributes or virtues cannot be “redistributed,” they seek to deprive men of their consequences—of the rewards, the benefits, the achievements created by personal attributes and virtues.

  10. DMA

    The purpose of this movement to lower the voting age is disclosed in the proven fraud in recent elections. See the work of Dr. Douglas Frank. Voter roles are expanded and fraudulent ballets are created for many who will likely not vote. These phantom voters control the election. 16 and 17 year olds will be a new reserve of unlikely voters.

  11. Ann Cherry

    “Although the end be last in order of execution, it is first in order of intention.”

    -St. Thomas Aquinas

    When we see who wants to lower the voting age to include children, most of them belong to a kind of cabal, which includes (but is not limited to) the Alphabet Mafia. Their most-holy acronym, LGBTQ+, contains a highly-favored “plus”, which historically starts with the the letter “P”, but is now known as MAP, or “minor-attracted persons.”

    Let’s face it, the Alphabet-Acronym People have a Pedo Problem. Not all of them, but when drag queens are twerking for pre-schoolers, and at libraries and primary schools, no less, well, Houston, we have a problem: a different kind of “P-value” problem, and it’s not a wee problem; it is meant to be deadly.

    I’ve been thinking about this “drag queen and toddlers” fetish that’s being promoted, and like many of us, wondering why, because it seems so inexplicable. So wrong.

    Not much will get sane people, especially sane parents, more riled up, then seeing their children sexually groomed, and gas-lighted into gender dysphoria and permanent self-mutilation, and not just by the popular culture, but in the public-school classroom, where parents are forced to send their children if they don’t have the means to do otherwise.

    Some social unrest might be expected. That’s the plan, anyway. But it’s not just drag queens twerking toddlers; social unrest will be fomented with mask and vex mandates and “climate lockdowns” due to self-imposed energy supply restrictions. Almost everything today that looks like madness, is intentional or invited.

    If we have to say it, this is part of the revolution towards forced collectivism, using Communist China as the model. This has been openly stated, and China’s President-for-Life (their king?) Xi Ping was the featured speaker at the Davos forum last year.

    Yes, our virtual prison is being assembled for us, even as we speak. Digital IDs, digital currency, cameras everywhere, social credit scores to cull the herd.

    So when I hear someone say, “Sixteen year olds (or younger) should be allowed to vote”, I can be pretty sure that someone wants to make children into adults for their own uses, be it political power, or sexual power.

  12. Cary Cotterman

    Sixteen-year-olds are in the midst of their immersion in leftist indoctrination through social media, entertainment, and their public school teachers, but they are not yet experienced or mature enough to begin to see through the bullshit they’re being brainwashed with. The result of letting them vote would be tens of millions of additional obedient robots voting Democrat, which would lock down everything in favor of the left, forever. That, of course, is the whole point.

  13. DAA

    It is funny that people (which ones?…) don’t realize that Death is the greatest of the Equalizers. If they persist in this endeavour, we will all be ‘equalized’.

  14. julia gutierrez

    If you’ve started puberty and yet the politicians are locking you in jail then you should be allowed to vote yourself out of jail. Ergo the voting age should be 12 so teenagers can vote to abolish public school.

  15. Milton Hathaway

    I am struggling with this. Of course 16-year olds as a group aren’t mature enough to vote; I certainly wasn’t. But many adults of any age aren’t mature enough to vote. Of course 16-year olds as a group are too-easily swayed by illogical emotional arguments in favor of counterproductive policies; I certainly was. But many adults of any age are too-easily swayed by illogical emotional arguments in favor of counterproductive policies.

    I would support this ‘compromise’: I am willing to let 16-year olds vote in exchange for a return to in-person voting, on election day only, with strong voter ID requirements and strong elections monitoring by representatives chosen by all affected parties with strong COMPETING interests in election integrity.

    Would this be enough to save the country from itself (or, rather, from it’s voters)? I’m not sure. I’m still pondering on other possibilities, such as annual re-registration requirements. I strongly believe that most bad voters, thankfully, tend to be low-motivation voters, and requiring even the slightest effort to vote will keep most of the bad voters away from the polls. True, this would still allow passionate idiots to vote, but they have always been with us and the country has survived. Dragging passionless idiots to the polls via the recent pandemic-excused changes has been a dance along the cliff-edge, giving us a president who is literally well into dementia diagnosis.

  16. Kevin

    The idea of self rule was just as crazy sounding as letting 16 year olds vote in 1776. No one believed that the average person, with no education could make choices to govern themselves. Even the framers referred to what they had wrought as a “great experiment”. The compromise that most states arrived at was to require land ownership… so give the voter a stake in the outcome. That’s the real problem. The people who vote for crazy policies often have no stake in the outcome. They are voting for what they can get from the state because the perception is that it costs them nothing. Politicians and lobbyists understand this all too well and buy votes with the money that will be paid by taxpayers (in the present it’s just debt which makes the entire proposition even worse). I’d support letting 16 year olds vote if the voting had to be in person with strong ID laws as well. But I’d also like to see some method of restoring a stake in the outcome for all voters… can’t be land ownership… but if we had a tax structure where everyone paid taxes, that might be enough.

  17. cdquarles

    Well, land owners certainly do pay taxes, and our current tax structure means everyone does pay taxes; even if they are not aware of it. Sure said taxes are not named the same and some are exempted from some kinds; yet all living do pay taxes, directly or indirectly or both.

  18. Vermont Crank

    Consider this from my home state.

    Every single year since the CDC began keeping records, The Northeast Kingdom of Vermont leads the nation in incest, insanity and imbecility.

    The industrial base of this inane inbred island of insipidity is comprised of the manufacture of God’s Eyes, Dream Catchers and providing guards for all of the gigantic barns erected to store all of the unsold What Would Jesus Do? (WWJD) paraphernalia created by your average Ed and Edna Evangelical.

    Rumors abound about the number of Middle School female students in Essex County who spend their entire summer preparing for their freshman year of High School by procuring falsies and bright shiny stiletto heel shoes and mini skirts with material so lacking in substance and size that most haberdashers confess – Man, that’s not enough material to cover a can of tuna say nothing about covering their cans – so they can hopefully get knocked up, leave their family’s barn and move into the cellar of her Baby-Daddy’s Single Mother’s FHA house and file for Unemployment, Welfare, Food Stamps, SSI Disability and WIC.

    Wilton “Woodchuck” Wilson, researcher at the University of Vermont’s ” Department of Social Studies and Such” thinks that the excuse proffered by the Fathers of the girls – Hell, the very name of our county has Sex in it – is not a legitimate excuse for what happens to the young women in the county but, rather, Professor Wilson thinks what happens is the Fathers just get sick of feeding, clothing and housing the little tramps and if’n’theys want to peddle their ass that is their choice, I’m too damn busy fixing the fuel pump on my Ski Doo to worry about that dammit, now leave me alone. is what his research has revealed over the years.

    How would America’s pretend democracy be improved by letting these fat little girls (RIP Coach Mike Leach) vote?

    Dear John Yes, widowers get one vote for their own selves and additional votes for his legitimate children

    Dear El Koraco. TY

  19. Johnno

    Who cares who votes when this is the official opposition at work?

    Romney, Collins, two other GOP senators help block reinstatement for unvaccinated troops

    Rand Paul Slams “Emasculated Republicans” For Accepting Bloated Spending Bill

    Besides, you can’t stop anyone from voting… that would be… DISCRIMINATION!!!!

    Majority of the NC State Supreme Court Rule that It Is Racist to Have to Prove You are a Citizen in Order to Vote

  20. Vermont Crank

    Well, land owners certainly do pay taxes, and our current tax structure means everyone does pay taxes; even if they are not aware of it

    Sad but true. The local tax man will say to you, “Say, that’s a nice little house ya got there. What’d it cost you, about $!95,000.00, Tell ya what, unless you pay me X % amount of its value each year, I will take control of it and you can go live in a handsome hotel in LA with all the other homeless.”

    When I was younger I used to say I owned my home. I now know better.

    The legal mob makes me pay protection to them or they will take my house even though it took me thirty damn years of usury payments to trick me into think I owned my home.

  21. JH

    By way of contrapositive, if a 5-year-old is not allowed to drive (or other things), then a 16-year-old should not be allowed to drive. I understand this post attempts to make a point using a crooked, fallacious slippery slope, it also brings out the ugliness of human beings. Just read some of the comments.

    Various factors can influence how people vote. Tribalism. Some people voted for Trump because they believed that Trump was a devout whatever-denomination Christian. Some voted for Biden because they can identify themselves somehow with Biden. Some were one-issue voters. Some voted for the less evil. Some are more easily incited, some not. Who is to say your voting decision is more rational?! Yourself, I guess.


  22. JH

    Part of this is representational voting, allowing parents more votes because of kids, which makes a kind of sense.

    What kind of sense is it?

  23. Milton Hathaway

    JH: “Some people voted for Trump because they believed that Trump was a devout whatever-denomination Christian.”

    I find the explanations the Trumpphobic come up with to explain his popularity interesting. In the 2016 election, devout Christians were a tough sell for me as a Trump supporter. I had some limited success pointing out the flawed biblical characters God typically chooses. Trump improved his standing with devout Christians somewhat in 2020 because of his follow-through on his promises, with very few betrayals, but they were never his base of support.

    (What? Does the term “Trumpphobic” bother you? Maybe it’s the implication that if you don’t support someone or something, you must suffer from some sort of psychological disorder? Well, join the club. Those terms are very divisive, but there’s no denying that they are effective at dividing the opposition. “Homophobe” was very effective; “groomer” is looking very effective, already causing a rift among the alphabet crowd.)

    Actually, explaining Trump’s popularity is quite easy. Half the country thinks the government has improved their lives, and the other half thinks the government has made their lives worse. Guess which half supports Trump? Trump’s popularity is completely explained in three words: “drain the swamp”. Most politicians hedge their bets, trying to thread the needle issue by issue, and come across as unprincipled or greased. Conservatives despise that, and I suspect libs do, too.

  24. Vermont Crank

    Argument in favor of allowing 16 y.o the vote

    1 Kings 13; [1] Saul was a child of one year when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel.

    Granting a Father his vote, plus the votes of all of his legitimate children -let’s say he has six children – means he has seven votes to only one for an 18yo bachelor.

    I don’t know if you are a Father or not but if you are you are likely to understand how having a child radically changed your perspective – spiritually and politically.

    I could go on but that alone makes sense, right?

  25. Vermont Crank

    It was prolly 30 or more years ago when I read a proposal that my Father-votes-for-his-kids idea is based on. I can not remember the source although I am quite certain it was a man who used to make all manner of sensible proposals to reform this madness called democracy – maybe he was associated with Howard Phillis, a very intelligent man who always had dried spittle in the corners of his mouth. Oncet, I was his caucus delegate in Cape Elizabeth, Maine mainly cos I loved his proposal to become the head of an agency he immediately promised to end because it was a monstrous joke.

    In any event, I found this a few minutes ago in one of Larry Auster’s View from the Right archives….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *