entire study of morals today turns upon the question: to what extent may (or must) liberty be restricted?

Few, if any, modern Western thinkers would support totally unrestricted liberty, just as few, if any, would support the total absence thereof. We do not, however, propose to use the weak argument of "authority" in this discussion. Rather we take as a basic premise that "the exercise of complete and unrestricted liberty is essential, provided that it not impinge upon the exercise of the liberty of another."

It is from such a premise that the doctrine of "consent" is drawn, since only through the (overt or tacit) consent of the object can it be proved that his liberty is not being restricted.

The problem now, however, becomes to define "consent." A mongoloid idiot or a 3-month-old child is quite obviously incapable of consent: one essential element of consent appears to be the ability to reason, another the ability to understand the elements of a question in order to arrive, through reason, at its solution. If a stranger says to a 5-year-old, "Come for a ride in my car and I'll give you a lollypop," or if he says to a 25-year-old, "Come for a ride in my car and I'll give you $20," the semantic content of the two invitations is the same: only their contexts differ. In the latter case, the object may be assumed to understand the implications of the invitation, and to be able to reach a reasoned decision therefrom; in the former case, this is not so. In the one case, consent is possible; in another, it is not.

It is at this point that the situation becomes complicated. What is the "age of consent?" Where is the line to be drawn? At 8 years, at 10, 14, 18, 21? Hebraic law places it at 13, Roman at around 15, Anglo-Saxon at 21. Local laws in the United States

fix varying minimum age-limits for marriage although many which authorize the marriage of younger people require that their parents consent for them. The voting age is a question of local law as well; at least one state now gives the ballot to 18-year-olds, and others are considering the adoption of similar measures. There are even greater local variations in the ages at which one may legally purchase alcohol or tobacco, or drive a car.

The logician will say appositely, that "it depends on the individual.' A more intelligent and educated person may at 16 be better able to understand and decide than an average individual of 25. Some 16-year-olds make excellent drivers; we all know older people who should never be allowed behind a wheel. Recognizing this, some states have no age-limit on drivers' licenses at all: if an applicant can pass the required test, his age is not taken into consideration.

Now, all this is obvious. What is less so is that our law (and law, after all, is merely the codification of certain social attitudes) tends generally to become more conservative concerning age-limits as the question to be decided becomes more grave. This is only natural: the amount of reasoning needed for running an automobile is less than that required for running a sex-life.

It would probably be desirable for voting rights to be made a function of intellectual (as contrasted with mere physical) maturity. We may yet come to allowing younger people to vote provided that they can prove their ability to understand issues and make choices. In the same way, many of us feel strongly that the 21-year limit placed upon freedom of sexual choice by most laws is arbitrary, outdated, and wrong.

Dura lex, sed lex: the law is harsh, but it is the law, and for the time

13