In the UK, it is illegal to buy alcohol if you are under 18.
Similarly, in most countries, you cannot vote until you have reached a specific age.
These are age-gates. You do not need to prove your competence to drink, vote, smoke, or get married; you just need to be old enough.
Some things have skill-gates. If you want an amateur radio licence in the UK, you need to pass an exam. You can be any age0.
Similarly, most jurisdictions allow you to get a medical licence once you have passed the requisite tests1.
There are also activities which are dual-gated. You can only get a driving licence after passing a test, but you can only apply to take the test once you are a certain age.
Where should society swap age-gates and skill-gates?
Perhaps the big one is voting. The UK is preparing to extend the franchise to all 16 and 17 year olds - but why is there an age-gate at all?
Children are affected by politics, they pay tax on the goods they buy, they exist in the world. Why shouldn't they vote?
The usual argument is that they are too immature. But maturity isn't dependent on age. Idiots are allowed to vote. Centenarians with no stake in the consequences of their politics are allowed to vote. People who don't understand what powers a government has are allowed to vote.
Would it really be so bad to introduce a voting licence? Make people take a short quiz to ensure they understand what they're voting for and why they're voting. Perhaps there are concerns about disenfranchising eligible adults (but not mature children) or that the state will rig the test (when they could rig the election) or whatever. But if we're sticking with the fiction that some people aren't mature enough to vote then we must give disenfranchised people a chance to prove their maturity.
You could make the same argument about driving. If a 7 year old is able to demonstrate mastery and control of a vehicle, are they likely to be a better driver than a 90 year old who has never taken a modern test?
Alcohol is different. We realise that the drug is harmful and especially harmful to developing humans. So we age-gate it. But do people really understand the health risks? Should you have to pass a test in order to imbibe? We make the people selling alcohol pass somewhat rigorous skills assessments. Perhaps the burden of proof should be reversed?
Wait, do you really believe all this?
No, not necessarily.
I find it fascinating that different cultures set different limits on people's activities. I wouldn't like to live somewhere that allowed anyone to drive on the public roads. Similarly, I don't particularly want governments restricting who can vote based on an arbitrary assessment.
But where are the limits? Why is the legal driving age so variable? Why are some driving tests easier than others?
Do you want a teenage doctor diagnosing you - even if they are legally certified? Should you be able to use a radio without passing a test if you're a legal adult?
Which age-gates and skill-gates do you think should be flipped?
10 thoughts on “Which age-gates should be skill-gates and vice-versa?”
@blog Def think that not everyone shows themselves worthy of a full adulting licence when they pass 18 or 21 or whatever - even me at times. Should you be able unconditionally to drink and/or bring children into the world if you are going to those badly and hurt other people? OTOH should you be allowed to do a wider range of things than is currently allowed if you show yourself able to handle them safely/well/...?
| Reply to original comment on mastodon.social
@blog@shkspr.mobi there’s also money-gating, for example, I’d quite like a Cessna Citation XLS+ but apparently according to them I need in excess of less than twelve million quid or so, which is just unfair.
| Reply to original comment on toot.pikopublish.ing
@blog Ok buy tbf once you hit a certain age all the doctors look like teenagers anyway.
| Reply to original comment on mastodon.scot
Alex B
Wisdom and judgement seem to me to be key elements, and we assume that age (and life experience) grant these. Whilst some Actual Adults somehow manage to bypass this and continue to make terrible decisions throughout their entire life, it would seem foolish to grant e.g. driving or surgical privileges to a tween, even if they do pass tests of the required technical skills, because it's rare that they will consistently make good decisions.
On voting, I guess amongst tens of millions of voters, a single voter's bad decisions are likely to be lost in the noise. And even the entire demographic of 16/17 year olds cannot be assumed to all vote in a particular way (though they tdo admittedly tend to lean Left/Liberal).
王超
The problem isn't age or permission; it's that you don't have a better standard for judging who is suitable to vote. Standards become outdated and can be manipulated, but age doesn't.
Alex
The problem with skill-gates is that they automatically present an impassible barrier to people who are disabled - and they are people who are perhaps the most affected by decisions of governments.
I lightly disagree. Plenty of disabled people can pass skill gates. Deaf people can pass driving teats in the UK. That said, I'm sure even the most ardent supporter of equal rights wouldn't suggest blind people should be able to bypass that skill gate.
Alex
This is correct, but I was also referring to people who are intellectually disabled - the barrier still exists for them. Should they not be able to vote?
The normal argument is that children are too immature to vote. If you agree with that (I don't) then it follows that there is a threshold under which some adults also shouldn't be able to vote.
Joker_vD
It is though, if not precisely 1-to-1. Going through puberty changes tremendously the way the brain operates.
And while I agree that the precise age line is largely arbitrary, it's a decent enough compromise in practice: it may allow some people who probably shouldn't vote to vote, and disallows some who probably could, but those are pretty small numbers overall, and unlike other arbitrary tests, the age line is not really something that the legislature can game to get more votes.
Otherwise, you get seemingly reasonable arguments for income/business qualification: like, hey, if you can't even run a modestly successful mom-and-pop shop, why should anyone listen to your opinions on how to best run the whole country? But this is obviously deceitful.
Or what about residency/citizenship requirements? After all, the actions of foreign governments do affect you (just as the actions of your government affect the peoples abroad) — shouldn't you be allowed to participate in foreign elections, and vice versa, from the principled point of view?
Well, as always with borders and demarcation lines, those are somewhat arbitrary. You can set e.g. legal drinking age anywhere between 16 to 25 and it seems to mostly work fine. So is voting age, it would seem.
More comments on Mastodon.