118

We already have age limits at the lower end. Why are people so against age limits at the upper end?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] megopie@beehaw.org 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Eh, frankly, I’m not a big fan of age limits or term limits, I think they’re fundamentally undemocratic. If people in a state keep electing someone then it is their right to do so.

Banning people over a certain age or who have served a certain amount of terms doesn’t solve the core issue in such circumstances, that being gerrymandering, voter suppression, and wide spread misinformation and disinformation spread by bad actors. There are plenty of old representatives and senators who I have endless respect and trust for, and it would really be a shame if they were forced to leave office just because they hit some arbitrary number of years or terms.

[-] BlueNine@beehaw.org 8 points 1 year ago

Legislative work is a career. One gets better at their career the longer they do it. I don’t hire rookie electricians, and I hate that my state forces to vote for useless green legislators. They don’t know what they are doing and they kowtow to lobbyists and interests who write all the bills that pass here. Term limits are step one in legislative capture.

Thanks for making room for an opinion that is often unpopular in left dominated online spaces.

[-] megopie@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

The funny thing is, the “term limits for legislators” and “age limits for legislators” did not come out of left wing theorists or even social liberal theorist, they came from Koch funded think tanks like the heritage foundation! It’s another example of how effective astroturfing and targeted political “advertising” can be at manipulating both side of the political spectrum.

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Eventually one might come to the conclusion that there is no way to have people in power and it not be abused.

[-] BlueNine@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

And yet, communities have collective needs, and require that some of us administer those needs. What are we to do? Embrace anarchy or libertarianism? Not for me I don’t think. Just push for systems that create positive, pro-social incentive structures. It is the best I think we can do.

[-] kool_newt@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

You're using "anarchy" as analogous to "chaos". Embrace each other rather than a group that claims power using violence.

[-] megopie@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

You can have people in power and have them not abuse it assuming that the public in turn has the power and information to remove or reprimand them them when they do so.

Obviously that can be difficult to implement well but it is far from impossible.

load more comments (9 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
118 points (99.2% liked)

Politics

10178 readers
416 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS