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?
