One thing I definitely wouldn't do is make it a "mature enough" metric. I'd be trying to avoid making it anything about value judgments as much as possible. — Terrapin Station

But, I'm interested to know how you would make it hinge on ability then.

We already have driving tests that you're required to pass before you can drive, by the way. — Terrapin Station

I'm aware of that, my suggestion was to give a hard driving test to teenagers not old enough to drive. I think it's a bad idea though.

So ability to consent, for example, where it's clear that the person can understand what they're consenting to, understand some possible consequences of it, etc.

Fair enough, but can you describe a legal procedure which a young person would have to undergo in order to obtain the freedom to do something? For example, if I'm a 17 year old, where would I be required to go or who would I have to talk to in order to be able to obtain the freedom to purchase alcohol? What questions would they ask me?

Their parents? Would we need a law for that?

I heard on NPR the other day that during the early days of America the age of sexual consent was 10.

But what if you have parents that's ok with their 9 year old child drinking or what if you have parents that are not ok with their 30 year old child drinking. We obviously have to set a legal age or condition under which a person is old enough to override the judgement of his parents. We could allow a 9 year old to purchase alcohol if his parents are ok with it, but we do have to at least set a condition under which someone is allowed to purchase alcohol without the permission of his parents. So my question is at what age or under what condition should someone be allowed to purchase alcohol at the store?

You used a 17 year old in your example so I was answering based on that.
I think other laws cover your concerns, a 9 year old drinking as much booze as they want sounds like child endangerment. The parents should be held accountable for that, the law already covers this behaviour. I believe it will for any example you come up with.

Well, of course there are age based laws in place that protect minors and these laws don't apply once you become an adult. I think that these laws should be based on age and I agree with our current way of doing things(except I think they should lower the drinking age in the US to 18). But I think that Terrapin Station was making a suggestion that they should hinge on some other standard other than age. That is to say that instead being able to buy alcohol after you reach a certain age, there should be another standard by which we decide who can or can't buy alcohol. I'm trying to inquire the details from Terrapin Station about how we could make this work in our society without relying on age.

It should be judged according to the individual, whether or not they can handle say, drinking alcohol. So who decides? Id say parents until they feel the kid is no longer a kid. So rather than sussing out each activity, a general rule of adulthood designation decides by the kids guardian. This guardian should decide based on a case by case.

Fair enough, but I think it would be reasonable to set a minimum and maximum age for adulthood at least. For example, no 14 year kid should be declared an adult by her parents(I think there are too few 14 year olds that are mature enough for that). Similarly, at 21 years of age, you should be automatically made into a legal adult.

I know too many 22+ year olds who make stupid decisions and vote for poor reasons or even cant handle alcohol. I know 14 year olds who could handle driving or drinking booze. Why should we have to take on the risk of the former? Why does a 14 year old fully capable of adult decisions have to pretend he isnt just because he is 14 years of age?
Why operate such that we ignore the actual capability of each individual?
Plus, you must consider that there are different levels of aptitude at different areas of maturity, all the more reason to be precise rather than generic in the approach.

Well, I would like to point out that it doesn't seem like having the parents decide is a particularly precise or objective method for figuring out the maturity of the child either. Some parents are unduly strict and other parents are unduly permissive in their judgement of their child's maturity. We have to take this into account. This is why I don't think it's so easy to come up with a better way of doing things. At the very least, if a 22 year old has his own place he should be allowed to purchase alcohol regardless of how reckless he is with the alcohol(that is because it seems silly to have the parents decide if he doesn't rely on them financially anymore). You probably agree with me on that restriction to having the parents decide on whether or not their child is mature enough to do various activities though. But I think when it comes to supposedly mature 14 year olds, we have to be careful. There are plenty of irresponsible parents who simply don't care and would let their 14 year olds have the freedom to purchase alcohol even if they aren't ready for it. Similarly, there are some strict parents that I know of who are not ok with their relatively mature 22 year olds doing various activities and would be more than happy to restrict their freedom to purchase alcohol. Another reason why setting an adult age can be important is that it lets the parents know when they are no longer responsible for the child. If the parent is no longer responsible for their child, then it is only fair that this child has adult freedoms to make a living for himself and to be allowed to buy booze.

The law should take account of reality.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15721164-600-let-me-out-its-the-fetus-that-decides-when-its-time-to-be-born-the-mother-is-just-obeying-orders-from-her-insatiable-unborn-baby-garry-hamilton-finds-out-how/

Ya, you are right. Some sort of standard age needs to be established, but at least we should be consistent on that age of adulthood. Old enough to vote? Old enough to drink booze or smoke pot or whatever else.
It should be the same across the board, agency of adulthood. For example, even though with pot (just became legal here in Canada) can effect brain development until a person is 23 or so the legal age should match the legal age of adult agency whatever that may be. Their decision isnt about whether or not it is healthy for them, its about whether they are “adult enough” to decide for themselves to risk their health.
So how to determine that age? How about we take the minimum age for the max adult responsibility thats already on the books in whatever country or society we are talking about. For example, at what age can the kid be drafted to war? If they are old enough for that bit of adulthood, they are old enough for pretty much anything else. Hows that?

Fair enough, but can you describe a legal procedure which a young person would have to undergo in order to obtain the freedom to do something? For example, if I'm a 17 year old, where would I be required to go or who would I have to talk to in order to be able to obtain the freedom to purchase alcohol? What questions would they ask me? — TheHedoMinimalist

One thing we could do is just have a DMV-type organization that grants licenses for all sorts of things, not just driving.

[

One thing we could do is just have a DMV-type organization that grants licenses for all sorts of things, not just driving. — Terrapin Station

I wonder what the drinking license exam would be like lol. I imagine it would be a quite hilarious :lol:

I agree that we should lower the drinking and marijuana age in the US to 18. I also think we should allow minors to vote if they pass a political knowledge test. I think the age of consent should be 16. I would keep everything else at 18 though

See that makes no sense to me. Old enough to consent to sex with all that might entail (babies mostly) but not drink alcohol?

Well, we can't stop kids from fucking anyway lol. Though, the age of consent is designed to prevent adults from fucking kids rather than kids from fucking kids(we don't even have laws that lol) . I think it's probably better if a 16 year old has sex with a fairly responsible 26 year old rather than than another 16 year old though. I suppose the parents in the forum mighty disagree with me though lol.

Why age? Why not after military service, or after having earned a year's pay and paid taxes on it. — tim wood

That's pretty funny, or pretty scary if you've really thought it through and stand by what you seem to be suggesting. It would still come back to age, unless you'd have no qualms about child soldiers and child labour.

And besides, fuck that. After military service? No thanks. This isn't North Korea. And I'm no fan of the military, for ethical reasons, to put it mildly. After having earned a years pay? So, I'd be a worker with no right to vote on issues like workers rights? I don't think that you've thought this through fully.

I wonder what the drinking license exam would be like lol. I imagine it would be a quite hilarious — TheHedoMinimalist

That could be fun :wink: but it would mostly just cover that the person has a reasonable understanding of things like the relevant chemistry, the risks involved, the relevant laws (such as drunk driving laws) and the risks involved in breaking the laws, etc.

Fair enough, I suppose the test would be hard enough that you would actually have to be intelligent to pass it.