The vote was always tied to the requirement to defend the country, to perform active military service.

Vietnam saw youths who could not vote (or order a beer) balloted for active service.

In Australian, the anti-Vietnam demonstrations were significantly (99%) anti-conscription (for the obvious reason given above).

Although that 1% of serial demonstrators comprising various anarchists, communists and whatever, and federal governments bent on casting Vietnam to suit their own secondary agendas, called it all as 'anti-Vietnam War' demonstrations. For the major part of the Vietnam War the Oz media were falling over their feet to do government's propaganda for them.

Dear Nathan,

This "age of majority" thing is just one shameful excuse to control the lives of others and deny their freedom, including their freedom of movement, religion and conscience.

If the issue in mind is the "right" to vote, then as suggested by Spindoc, many will be more than happy to get away from it by leaving a parking ticket unpaid for six months: voting is a hoax, it's just for show since there is no way on earth for the political class to peacefully allow us to kick them out of their jobs and power.

As for your specific points:

<<1. Students need to spend more time in school for advancement>>

So you decide to label all young people "Students" so you can incarcerate them in schools, for the "advancement" of your social ambitions, perhaps so you can tame them into becoming part of your "work-force".
(reminiscent of the way old people in this country are incarcerated in nursing homes "for their own good")

<<2. Teenagers can't decide their future careers at ages like 16 or 17>>

Anyone of any age should be able to decide, as well as change that decision later... that's of course if they wish to have a career in the first place.

<<3. Being young, they need more time to spend with friends and family>>

Is anyone preventing them?

<<4. People need time to better understand themselves as individuals>>

I completely understood myself as an individual at the age of one year (perhaps earlier, though I do not remember), but knowing (rather than merely understanding) who you really are usually takes many lifetimes.

<<5. Many U.S states allow alcohol use at 21, upon seeing the impacts>>

The only valid criterion for disallowing such bad habits is whether one's drinking is likely to harm others or not.
Are you claiming that those who drink over 21 are not threatening others, but those under 21 are?

Nathan I partially agree with you as I believe the drinking age should be raised to 21. The only problem with that is if everything else isn't raised you get a situation where young married people or solders for example are not allowed to buy alcohol even though other aspects of their lives are considered adult enough.

I think 18 year olds are still basically stupid teenagers incapable of taking personal responsibility; most probably think its cool to buy alcohol for their younger friends. Most young people are also too inexperienced to vote responsibly but in this regard I accept we have to take the bad with the good. Spindoc's voting restrictions look pretty good to me but that's never going to happen.

Out of curiosity Nathan and going by so many of your past posts regarding your parents, how old are you? Have you reached the magical fully matured aged of 25 yet? I'm 66.

Just a bit of a kid then Hippie.

Are you sure you're old enough to vote.

The age restriction I would like to see is a minimum age that politicians can access their golden superannuation when the have quit politics.

I do not see why the taxpayer should be paying large superannuation to career politicians like Natasha Stott-Despoya from such a youthful age.

Then again I can't understand why some politicians can double-dip from the trough of public (taxpayers') money either, for instance by qualifying for State and federal parliamentary superannuation and benefits, or for that matter for two taxpayer supported superannuation from any public service. There needs to be some balancing in the equation.

While on the subject, ex-PMs should not expect to be the beneficiaries of golden handshake conditions like free travel and office for life. Put a limit of THREE years on that. They are getting jolly good superannuation, fully indexed against inflation (which they deny their 'employees', the military and public servants!).

The now very dated and in many cases wrong assumption behind the generous conditions for politicians was that they would be entering politics from middle age and later. To encourage suitable experienced, distinguished (by their accomplishments) people it was felt that they needed to be compensated to forgoing their best earning and asset accumulation years had they stayed in the private sector.

Aidan and Yuyitsu,

To clarify, young age in terms of development with many parents and in early education, there is often a 'rush' element to see people learn and develop 'something' - rather than natural growth of the individual.

This development in my view needs to be part of a well established system that caters to the needs of the individual - of course a challenge and is more likely to see a person take on better steps in terms of future development as a human being.

I know, because I was told at high school, by my home group teacher who left at year '11' (whatever that year means) I needed to know what I wanted in terms of employment and further education.

It's not simplistically about imposition, it's about recognition that many in society are not fully realising themselves (at any age) because someone has said "18" and then we are all expected to move into some major new sphere at that time, being "18".

The socialists and economic rationalists want species (like humans) to be put into their beliefs at "18", rather than seeing a more well developed person - who could contribute to society in a range of positive and even better ways.

So whoever developed this "18" year title, I believe has a lot to answer for - as it has become entrenched in societies like Australia and enforced on individuals. That is why reflection is important - but law enforcement at "18" puts people with a lower capacity in terms of full brain development in a difficult position in that regard.

Economics should not simply be based around purchasing or highly paid jobs - that is why we have a section of our society, past "18" living on welfare, due to a poorly structured economic system. Finally, I am over 25 - and I'm nowhere near 66 years of age.