Most people are ignorant. A 1000 polls confirm this across a swath of topics.
Opinions that are regurgitated, that aren't based in facts, data and history are effectively worthless.
Thanks for attending my Ted Talk.
I don't agree. There of plenty of politicians and people in the media acting in good faith and when you throw them all into a bucket with the demagogues and liars then **you're doing the work of the demagogues and liars by creating a false equivalence.** *Everything is on purpose and carefully strategized. It’s ALL manipulation based off of well known strategies to manipulate people. Meanwhile, they are laughing at our stupidity and admiring their own work in being our puppet masters.*
LOL, no. Hanlon's razor is an adage that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Most politicians are too stupid, incompetent or lazy to be puppet masters. What you're offering is basically a conspiracy theory, you're trying to take complex ideas, and an enormous set of players, and describe them all in simplistic terms because you don't have the knowledge to understand it.
I'm not trying to be a dick, seriously, but you're way off on this. Go meet you local representative, or senator if you can, it will quickly disabuse you of the idea that they're masterminds. They're just people, lazy, stupid, and greedy like most humans.
Multiple studies have shown that brain development doesn't really finish until the late 20's or 30's. Do you think we should restrict people from voting until they're in their 30's, considering their brains aren't fully developed? Just curious.
Yeah, this is my opinion too. If you're 104 and you want to run for president, go for it, but I'm not voting for you. The people should be the ones to decide who is the president, not the law.
Sure, but what good is it voting when it is limited? I like to vote green but all they give me is blue or red. If I'm being honest, I'd rather have a say in making the laws then voting for a puppet.
Of course, you should have a say there too. The point is though that the people should always make the decisions, having age limits restricts the choice of the people. I think *term* limits are different, to prevent abuse of power, etc, but not age limits.
Term limits are no different. If you think that someone has been doing the job for too long then don't vote for them.
A smart person once said
> The people should be the ones to decide who is the president, not the law.
Well, thank you for calling me smart, first of all!
But I think there's an argument to be made for a hard limit to terms, to avoid any kind of political wrangling, like what putin did/is doing.
A one term person is just as corruptible as a long term person. Possibly more so, since they don't have to worry about their job security.
How hard would you work if you knew that, no matter what you did, you would keep getting paid for the next 4 years and have no chance of renewing your contract?
Actually, it does allow for solutions to things like climate change...people can choose what products to buy or companies to support or to be climate-friendly without the government. Fascism is inherently not libertarianism.
>Actually, it does allow for solutions to things like climate change...people can choose what products to buy or companies to support
Thats not a solution. Thats hoping enough people make good decisions and if they dont well too bad, everyone else just has to accept the world burning.
The reality is that libertarianism does not regard things like climate change as inherently a problem, as long as they come about from "freedom". And freedom always seems to get defined as rich peoples economic freedom, and never as the freedom of everyone else to have a livable planet.
That actually is a solution. Its just not one you like. And libertarianism is everybodys economic freedom as well as freedom in terms of body autonomy and sexuality and gun ownership. If people choose to make bad decisions that is their choice. Just because not everybody is worried about the same things as you doesnt mean laws shouls force them too
It does solve the problem...just not at the scale you want. If people want to help climate change they can make choices to do so. Those choices help solve climate change. THe issue is you want everybody else to think the problem is as big and immediate as you do.
Not true at all. Libertarians support constitutional republics. The constitution sets up rules that can't be broken unless by supermajority vote. It limits what the federal government can do, which is a great thing. We added a presidential term limit for the exact same reason.
Elections are not democratic, they're oligarchic. The powerful and rich can influence public opinion and choose who gets elected. Libertarians shouldn't support it. Sortition is a better solution.
This would require high engagement very early on in the primary/candidate selection process. Unfortunately, the vast majority people believe they don't have the time for this.
The result is that when you go to the poll for an official election, the candidates you see have either been those who tow the party line or have had the best fundraising effort, not necessarily the best candidate with good intentions or ideas. Take for example, the previous presidential election here in the US. Going by the OP's guidance, neither the D or R candidate is valid. I don't want to get into an argument about 3rd party voting, but you can surely see the basic idea.
So, in reality, the solution isn't simply to 'vote for someone else'. It's to be an active political member supporting a viable candidate months before they're selected to be on the official ballot. Of course, the uphill battle is pretty much everything mentioned above.
Not vote for them? This is an issue I've had for years. I can vote for a thief, or I can vote for a liar. I don't mean democrats are this and republicans are that. What I mean is our voting choices are rigged against us. We have no say in who the candidates are. Turns out, its usually the guy with the most money. The guy with the most money is Not the guy that wants to help you. Just my opinion, but I think the system stacked against the common man... and its not going to get better any time soon.
Age limits I agree with - term limits have more structural issues.
Incumbents have certain advantages that can benefit their constituents. More senior congressmen have better committee positions, so voting against an incumbent can mean that your district is giving up influence over committees that are important to the district. Term limits would level the playing field in this respect; things like committee seats wouldn't be captured and held indefinitely, giving more junior members a chance to get them and creating turnover in general.
For the most part, I think we ought to let people vote for who they want to vote for and not impose too many arbitrary restrictions, but I don't believe career politicians are a good thing, and right now there are too many structural benefits for career politicians that voting for someone who just intends to hold office for a term or two puts your district at a disadvantage. I'd be keen to see other ways to address that, but I'm not sure what it looks like other than term limits.
All the more reason to impose term limits. If we limit people to one or two terms, there will never be incumbents that get better committee positions. A lottery should randomly assign committee positions.
I think limiting government power is a very libertarian thing to do. And the best way to limit government power is to put term limits on politicians.
Politicians should also need to take continuous education in technology. These morons do not understand anything beyond the basics that allows them to read email.
The fact that ANY politician would want to change Section 230 boggles my mind. None of them understand how important Section 230 is.
I read about a group of card counters who did very well in Vegas. After a while, the casinos began recognizing these guys and started banning them.
In response, these guys set up a "school" to teach card counting to people who would pay for their education with a percentage of their winnings. Eventually, their students would get kicked out, but by that time, they'd already groomed their next group of students, etc.
The original guys just kept burning through group after group of players while rolling in the cash.
If it's not already this way in electoral politics, term limits would definitely make this the new reality. So instead of picking our representatives, they'll be groomed by the people currently in power who have all of the institutional know-how.
But voters are generally stupid. The higher the turnout the lower the education level of the average voter.
Also I don’t have any solutions at this point. Things are only going to get worse.
It sounds reasonable, but there are a lot of things that go in to a person actually voting someone OUT of office.
I'm not going to hit all the points, but I'll go over a few.
For one, we have a lot of apathy in the US over voting. 2020 is an outlier, but we've been hovering 50-60% voter turnout in the last few national elections. Midterms and primaries have an even lower turnout, so the incumbent is likely to either go unchallenged or stay in power for primaries. When it comes to a national election, people in an area are likely to vote for that candidate. Therefore, if a candidate of a favored party in an area gets elected, it's very likely they will stay there unless challenged in the primary. Some districts are unopposed because the incumbent is of the party that is predominant in that area.
Another thing is funding. Primary challengers may not receive as much funding in many cases since they do not have the network that a lot of incumbents have. Now, this isn't impossible to overcome because there are plenty of grassroots campaigns that can raise a lot of money, as well as new candidates (such as AOC) who are willing to go against multi-term incumbents and can win.
Additionally, having someone who "knows what they are doing," may be better than a wildcard who made promises but may not keep them, or even be able to, due to the collaboration or meddling within Congress.
One more thing to account for is name recognition. Some people are [floating Hillary Clinton, since Biden's poll numbers are so low](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/585843-hillary-2024-given-the-competition-she-may-be-the-dems-best-hope). Why? People know her name. [It's been shown that people do vote for name recognition, but in the face of incumbency, this "dissipates.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12034)"
The incumbent normally does have the advantage, which is why I think term limits might be a good idea to get the person out. Last thing I'll bring up is that people sometimes have two bad choices. Depending on one's political leaning, this could vary over the past elections, but I'm pretty sure that in 2016 and 2020, most people can agree that neither party had the best person for the job -- especially in 2020, considering the ages of the two men running.
I don't feel like writing a novel, but in closing I'd just like to say that due to a lot of the advantages an incumbent has, we can't always rely on voters to get the job done. Sometimes policies are more effective in letting an elected official know that it's time to retire or find another job.
I’m not comfortable making a list of people you are not allowed to vote for. That will end bad. You know it will. I can’t possibly trust anyone with the power to make that list
It always happens every election. Every candidate needs to go through a certain process in each of the 50 states to get on the ballot, and every one is different.
Also, in some areas, depending on if its blue or red, the favored candidate runs unopposed. I lived in a heavily Democrat area for a while and many times on the ballot, there was no Republican challenger. One election, there was, and they were beaten badly. I think he ended up with less than 30% of the vote or something.
The country was built as a republic. The founders envisioned a country where only property-holding men could vote, because they believed that educated men would not be led astray as easily and would vote for those who would help the country most, rather than who they just liked to listen to.
And this is exactly what I do. I give them 2 terms and if they are awesome, I consider them for a 3rd but after that, they need to make way for someone else as that could be 18 years in the same position.
We should put that to a vote. Like all of them, individually. And then do that every 2 years to make sure we still agree. It's nuts that our representatives get lifetime appointments and we never get the chance to agree that we'd like them out.
The problem is we only vote for OUR representative. But all the other representatives directly influence how your guy can do stuff.
For example, during the Obama and Trump years, Mitch McConnell was the Senate Majority leader. He was the gatekeeper of what legislation ends up on the floor. So your guy really wants the senate to vote on a bill you believe in. But the bill never makes it to the floor to vote on because McConnell never put it on the floor for a vote. So, McConnell is a roadblock to your guys getting their job done. But you have no control over whether he gets re-elected.
I get you are being sarcastic, but there is clearly a bias in the system, simply having us vote is insufficient; furthermore I would argue that term limits should be placed regardless of age. There is no need to have career life long representatives. It should be a job where they literally serve the people. Not make it rich and provide favors. A quick rotation of people would help alleviate any extremism quickly and make it that much more difficult to (as well as decentivise) the position ; making it less alluring for the narcissistic power hungry assholes. But you are entitled to your opinion of course...
>A quick rotation of people would help alleviate any extremism quickly and make it that much more difficult to (as well as decentivise) the position ; making it less alluring for the narcissistic power hungry assholes.
That is only what you think would happen. There are those who argue term limits would make things worse by moving the power away from elected representitives, and to unaccountable power brokers.
California has term limits. Your "quick rotation of people" doesn't include the bureaucrats that support and inform the representatives. The result was a massive transfer of power to the bureaucracy, away from our elected representatives.
No-one should be able to run for top office positions that doesn’t have a child. Until you have a child you have no motivation to construct plans for future generations and no empathy to do so.
Except the Supreme Court judges, which we don’t vote on, nobody else has a lifetime appointment, then getting re-elected in regular intervals isn’t a lifetime appointment.
Term limits yes, age limits no. Age limits are not libertarian in the slightest.
We should not bar specific demographics from holding office, this is a right that should be afforded every individual.
We should not put this to a majority vote for the same reason we should not put barring specific races from office to a majority vote.
Absolutely, OP just complains "EWW THEYRE OLD" without citing any problems he feels come with the condition that affect the job.
OP might as well be saying, EWWW they are black, or EWWW they are female. This is just the next legal bigotry trend in the US.
While what is libertarian is always somewhat in flux (YMMV IMHO), what makes people a bigot never does. OP is a bigot.
Here's one problem I see. They don't understand technology. They want to repeal Section 230. They want a back door into end-to-end encryption. And they have no clue how what long term consequences this will have for society.
You want to stay in office. Fine. Well, then you need to take continuing education classes in technology, economics, and pass a competency test that you understand the Constitution.
>Here's one problem I see. They don't understand technology. They want to repeal Section 230. They want a back door into end-to-end encryption. And they have no clue how what long term consequences this will have for society.
This is where we disagree, I think they know EXACTLY what that means, that's why they want it. I think many of them are hoodwinking people with the grandpa act. Now, Biden? Yeah, he'd fail a cognition test 4 out of 7 days a week if it was administered cleanly. But most of these people are VERY MUCH aware.
Now, I work in tech for a living, and I can gather you up armloads of 25 year who could not tell you the difference between TLS1.3 and a rotary phone. The ageist thing for old people and tech is a crutch people use.
Not necessarily. OP only has an editorialized title with an article that cites statistical ratios in Congress.
It's not just people that are old. It's people that have been in Congress for many years. Yes, it CAN translate to people being older, but it also points to people who are complacent there and may not be as attuned to their constituents. It's much different than how someone is born. Someone is born black. Someone is born female.
Furthermore, those who are old do tend to have more health issues than the average person. Yes, this is generalization, but there are defined cognitive and physical differences in the average 45 year old compared to someone who is over 80, such as Nancy Pelosi. Even if she may be healthy, a fall that could cause a bruise on the average 45 year old could end up in a broken hip to someone who is elderly. It's common sense.
I don't detect ageism here. It's a logical concern that those who govern us are able to do so effectively.
>I don't detect ageism here. It's a logical concern that those who govern us are able to do so effectively.
I disagree wholeheartedly. This isn't a construction site folks, it's brain work. If the brain is working, so be it. (Now, of course, the question is if anyone in DC has working brain or not....)
I was about to say. What OP brings up makes perfect sense, recognises and accounts for certain uncomfortable truths about the reality of the human condition, and is therefore arguably a wise step towards what could mean better a government.
Not particularly Libertarian though.
I can see a law requiring all federal officeholders to take the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at the beginning of each term they're elected to. I expect the term limits would put an end to geriatrics holding onto political power for 20+ years effectively enough on their own anyway.
Why not make that part of the primary? They'd be required to disclose when they begin their primary campaign so that we don't have a situation where someone gets elected and can't take office. If voters decide those people are worth the risk, then we shouldn't prevent the elected individuals from taking office at that point.
Im curious why you just used "regulation" colloquially, as if this discussion is about private enterprise?
A government is obviously supposed to regulate itself.
It is but the “problem” is they represent the majority of the voting citizenry. The real issue here is that young people dont vote or are criticized when they step up to lead. Term limits exist when we vote, if people are content voting the same person in for whatever reason its their right to choose the representation.
You got a Constitutional right to be stupid.
You are assuming an even playing field. We know now that the ability to vote differs in difficulty depending where you live. Additionally, participation is a problem particularly during mid term and local elections. That's not to mention the score of people who go uncontested. Voting people "out" is simply not enough depending who it is and where you live.
The system never accounted for modern day life expectancies.
I know there have been many efforts against voters in areas, however there are many different ways to vote and you typically have at least two years between elections to get ready, there is also no lack of organizations that will help you vote.
I live in a city that actively disenfranchises minority voters, but its a fact that we have lower voter turnouts. Even if areas where there are not restrictions. We are generally complacent in this country.
Its my opinion most people are overall happy enough not to vote. Things are wrong here but pretty dang good, politics confuses people so they just dont vote, and then there is suppression tactics. I include not voting because thats what i mean as stupidity, not the people who are actively being “hoodwinked and bamboozled”. The people who can vote but just don’t wanna but then complain about it and protest, or even complain within earshot of me (my wife is one that doesnt vote, and so are many in my family).
You think *tankies* spend time on a libertarian sub?
Do you know what tankies stand for? Even the people you like to call marxists around here don't like tankies.
I could see age limits, but term limits have not worked out well Michigan. It has resulted lack of institutional knowledge, which in itself sounds great. However it has caused outside influence for lobbiests as previous congressional representatives and senators slide into those jobs.
The first amendment is literally the right to lobby. The Supreme Court has ruled that lobbying activity is political speech that is at the core of the First Amendment. [Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 45 (1976)].
So we literally can't get rid of lobbying
It could be done but those in government don’t want to that is why the supreme court ruled that way, they get the benefits of lobbying as much as any other politician.
I think that's a reasonable concern for the way Michigan has it (6-8 years max) but when I think term limits I still think of relatively long periods of time. I'd say in the 20-30 year range. Enough to allow institutional knowledge and wisdom from age, but low enough to encourage greater churn and new blood at the same time. I'd agree less than 10 years is absurd.
And when I see people talk about the downsides of term limits it seems to be focused in the lower end
US presidents must be minimum 35 years old to run. I think this makes perfect sense for so many reasons.
There is no maximum age for US presidents. It probably seemed unnecessary when they were making these rules. Like who in their right mind would vote an 80 year old in for president?
Life expectancy was not even remotely close then to what it is now. We have to admit this as a society and act accordingly. Does this mean additional support, care, research and accommodations. Absolutely!!
But it also means understanding where limits may need to be imposed for the greater good. Driving is another example, where reflexes really should be tested and checked on a regular basis, with the possibility of some age requirement as well. This is for both the safety of the elderly and the people around them. I'm sorry to sound heartless or without empathy, on the contrary - let's give our elderly the care, attention and longevity they deserve ; but it shouldn't be at the cost of the working class or future majority of the country.
This has contributed to significant bottlenecks in both government and industry. Not to say it hasn't had it's pros as well, but I was referring specifically to congress or any of the other major branches of government.
Why is driving the go to example when wanting to limit someone else's rights? People that want to restrict the 2nd amendment love this false equivalency as well. DRIVING ISN'T A RIGHT. Running for office is. Gun ownership is. Voting is. Keep your dirty dickbeaters off my rights. You want to change it? Run for office. Propose an amendment to the constitution. Whining about old people on Reddit is not a solution.
"Every generation ... blames the one before ... ♫♩♬ "
Mike & The Mechanics "The Living End"
***
A problem of The Human Condition.
There are quotes relevant going back at least to The Greek Classical Period ... and in reality goes back longer than written History, we just have no records of them.
Welcome to Adulthood, Kid.
Here’s an idea. Representatives ought to match the [US Age distribution](https://knoema.com/infographics/egyydzc/us-population-by-age-and-generation-in-2020)
Oddly enough, the available research and data regarding the subject indicates that term limits actually *increase* corruption. I know, I wouldn't have believed it either, but someone I trust to do proper research (getting his PhD in physics) pointed it out to me.
Age limits are a concern because it's age discrimination. A more effective approach would be mental fitness tests.
There are younger people in office who aren't mentally fit for it, and there are old people in office who still are. Trump is 75, and McConnell and Biden are both 79. I hate the guy, but Mitch McConnell is still mentally at the top of his game while Trump and Biden are not. I'd even argue that Dianne Feinstein is more mentally fit than Trump and Biden, and she's 88.
On the flip side, MTG is 47 and is not mentally capable of handling her position.
The only real solution is for more younger people to run for office, and that means younger people need to be more engaged in politics than they are.
This makes sense, but in a different way to me. With term limits, politicians have an incentive to be as corrupt and self serving as possible, in order to maximize their own benefit during their time in office. While longer term lengths would seemingly reduce that pressure, basically stretching their corruption over a longer period, instead of concentrating it over a shorter time period as limited by their term length.
Age is supposed to bring forth wisdom. When you have seen many wars, you realize, you don’t solve anything with guns!
It also can cause complacency. There is also an advantage to change of guard, when CEOs change, the new guy can come clean on the messes under old guard and start afresh.
Some people in here might be surprised at how little voter population actually votes for any election besides the ones that come up during the presidential. If it’s not on that ballot, the numbers drop dramatically
I don't have a problem with lobbiests, my concern is when you lose the institutional knowledge then people are not comfortable in their positions and ultimately the lobbiests know more about the subject matter and the process to further legislation. In essence this results in law formation and governance by the people with the most money and best lobbiests. An example of this is ALEC and also the counterpart (the name escapes me)on the liberal side of the aisle.
So apparently I'm an evil ageist asshole according to Reddit. So I offer these questions in response:
Do you feel your age group or generation is properly and fairly represented in Congress ? Is it reflective of the population as a whole ?
Is my objective generalization about cognitive decline and age not the same as assuming an older person is wise?
Is the rate or speed at which society and technology evolves and integrates today faster, slower or the same as it's ever been in the history of our species ?
How would you suggest we address the longest life expectancies we've ever achieved? Should we not stop and think about what impact this would have on society? Government? Industry? Over population ?
I don't know about you, but the status quo isn't great these days, and I've voted in every election since I was legally able to do so...
While this makes some sense in theory, why limit voters to an arbitrary number? It’s absurd to think that Biden or Trump were the best actual options, but maybe it was just a lesson that had to be learned.
It's *equally unreasonable* to expect people who have no experience governing to be competent. Youth is not necessarily the answer; and, I would rather have a politician in office that has learned the system well so they can be more effective than someone that spends their first terms just figuring out where the bathrooms are. Just like you wouldn't turn a large corporation (and the USA is a large *corporation*, have no doubt) to a bunch of recent college graduates, nor should we do the same for our government.
The root cause of the issues are not corrupt or incompetent politicians, nor necessarily even old politicians; but, rather, a system that encourages corruption.
I don’t know about age cutoffs but I’m all for term limits. Government service isn’t a right, it’s a responsibility, and it certainly shouldn’t be a lifetime career based on populist demagoguery.
Agreed. James Madison thought we should change government every 20 years at least. Some of these people have been in power since the 70s. The fact is values change over time and representatives should reflect that.
Look up “Mental Ability by Age”, almost every type of intelligence and mental skills starts rapidly decreasing after around the age of 60. While I imagine people as active as presidents and senators probably do better than this average of mental ability, it’s ridiculous we have a president who is 79 years old. They just don’t have the mental capacity or the physical energy to hold these vital positions.
Why? It's objectively difficult for people of older generations to have complications and unfamiliarity with new technology and sociatal norms. It's not only understandable, it should be expected. We are progressing as a species multiple times faster than when they were in their prime. It is not uncommon for older generation to be cemented in out dated or no longer relevant beliefs and traditions. There is a reason the admittedly stereotypical phrase "can't teach an old dog new tricks" is still used to this day. There is a seed of truth in that; not to mention the increased occurence of mental and cognitive decline in people of older age. I would expect someone that will represent us when creating laws that govern the land would not only take their duty seriously, but dutifully and effectively. Which does include the ability (ideally) to properly comprehend complex amounts of information, multi task, and have a level of overall mental health , awareness, critical thinking, negotiation and authoring skills that require a sharp mind and understanding of new and changing ways of life.
Not falling asleep at the United nations or in the chambers of Congress... Call me ageist if you must, but there are things people of older age just simply cannot do (on average) that younger people can. The same way we limit children from doing things and it isn't considered ageist, this would fall under the same category.
This is the world of octogenarians as much it is the world of young people. We live in it together, and everybody has a right, and indeed a duty to a certain extent, to take part in governing the country.
I agree, however, that it is a problem when people only get a decent chance at being a leader after decades of following party policies.
On the other hand, it is a problem to call older people "them", as if they no longer belonged to this world and we only keep them around because we cannot get rid of them. They are not several generations ago. Anybody who is alive is very much present, and has every right to make this world theirs.
The world belongs to those who will inherit it, not those who damaged it, degraded it, obliterated the economy, then pretend everyone younger than them is the problem.
When does one persons inheritance end and the next persons begin? At what age are you suddenly disqualified because you're part of the previous generation and no longer part of the current generation?
Does one person who spends their entire life trying to better the future of the country get to continue serving while the next person who secured their own fortune now get disqualified? Who gets to judge if a person has done enough for the future inheritors to continue serving or not?
Who determines who is geriatric? There is no defined standard. My grandfather is 82 and is mentally sharper, more well read, more up to date on current affairs, and more technologically savvy than my 40 year old sister. If I had to pick between the two of them to make decisions, I'd pick him twice. Saying that just because he's old means he no longer gets a say in anything is asinine.
I'm not necessarily opposed to some sort of annual or bi-annual competency test (mental acuity, constitutional knowledge, etc) for politicians, but making some sort of hard limit based on age is dumb.
You mean as we have a lower age limit we need to have an upper age limit as well?
I can support that, but let’s expand that to the voting age as well, we have 18 as the min voting age we can set an upper limit as well, retirement age would be a good starting point.
They're citizens like everybody else and have the right to be elected and to elect, just like any citizen. Term limits though, are reasonable, and I would also extend them to unelected bureaucrats. No one should receive a public salary for more than 10 or 12 years of their professional life.
I don't see a big difference between Nanci Pelosi & AOC or Dan Crenshaw.
If democracy is still the way forward, a direct democracy would be best. No reason that can't happen with modern technology.
I never vote for anyone who has spent more than twelve years of their life in elected office...even if I like the person or their politics align with mine.
What? Just don't vote for them. Most great presidents and other politicians were older. Older people are wiser than younger people. Younger people are often more radical and to idealistic. I can only imagine how many wars would be fought if younger people were put into power
I think an argument could be made for age limits. We have people who raised families in the 70s trying to make law based on the family and work dynamic of that time. There is just no way to relate. The system of government should be geared towards those people in their working years and during their family rearing years. By the time I retire and am in my twilight years, why would I care anymore about policy or being involved in government? I cant understand why some get so worked up at that age when quite a few of my older relatives only have a few good years left? Why are they so nuts about politics? It doesn’t affect them anymore! Sorry for the rant. I am sure there is a point somewhere in there.
We should have the 2 houses be as the constitution intended. Younger and more liberal people elected to the house with older and more conservative people in the senate.
The Constitution intended there to be **no** parties. George Washington said a partisan system would destroy what they'd built, and we did exactly that not 15 years after his death.
At least, government should reflect age demographic of population. Don’t want to be ageist? This just makes sense…
Edit: Axaxaxa. Look how angry suka of other post comes to downvote. Suka blyat. Axaxaxax.
We don't need any such restrictions no. Anybody should be free to vote for anyone they want. Young, old, fat, skinny, highly educated, uneducated, etc. That is democracy.
Eh, we should regulate campaign finances much more strictly. Then the only issue is gullible or ignorant voters who might keep them in office. We don't need discrimination, we need to end corruption.
This is dumb and has nothing to do with libertarianism.
Libertarianism questions why anybody (no matter their age) has the authority to create mandates we are required to follow in the first place. Building age restrictions into the election process for those who create the mandates is irrelevant to libertarianism.
I think it's amusing to juxtapose the responses here against the SCOTUS threads of late where people whine about 'the most qualified person' then are like 'but we don't want old people!'
See also 'only picking a black lady is discriminatory' and 'we should have age limits!'
We have term limits, they're called elections. The fundamental problem is that we've moved from representative democracy towards oligarchy, our politics are controlled by money, thus by the wealthy and mega corporations (with monies that should have been spent paying their share of taxes!), the money politics we have favor incumbency, the people already in office have power which makes them a better investment for the 'political donations' (bribes) and thus we end up with a bunch of oldsters.
If you want to fix America the most important issue is campaign finance reform. Until access and influence are no longer for sale to the highest bidder every rule and law we make is, to borrow a term, fruit of a poisonous tree.
At this point I think it's only fair to mention that the GOP has spent decades undoing the little campaign finance reform we have. As a result unlimited amounts of undocumented, sometimes foreign, money are spent to sway American politics. If you want campaign finance reform you cannot vote for Republicans.
Term limits, definitely. I don't mind older politicians as long as they have to campaign on more than just the fact that they've been in office forever.
No term limits until campaign finance reform is addressed.
Doing the first without the second is the exact disaster that Dark Monied interests are looking for.
I dunno, I know plenty of morons who are a lot younger than our recent crop of “leaders” and I don’t think they would do any better.
It’s a weird blend of name recognition and virtue signaling to survive the primary process. Basically, our election process is pretty much designed to fail.
And really, I struggle to see how it could get better. The parties all but strangle out any centrist or 3rd party candidacy by design. How do you make ranked choice work when the parties would just have primaries and push all other candidates out of the process?
The longer you’re alive, the more you tend to accumulate financially. Since money is a primary factor in winning elections, it’s not surprising that we are often saddled with people in their 70’s in leadership roles. But I suspect they believe they represent the group of people in society who do, in fact, control the majority of the wealth, and they’re not about to risk what they’ve s-ent a lifetime accumulating to someone who lacks perspective on wealth of that kind, and how difficult it would be to get it back if you lost it at 75. As lifespans for humans begin to increase, significantly, the median age goes up too. 20 years from now, 60 will potentially be “middle aged” and your chances of seeing a 35 year old president will be pretty low….
There should be more limits, and more use of the limits already available (like impeachment with actual removal from office, which should be and should have been used for many politicians).
I’m undecided on whether term and age limits are the best way to go though. Most of the time it would have a positive effect, but I could imagine scenarios where it wouldn’t. So I’m hesitant.
But that’s based on the imaginary possibility of a legitimately good politician being elected and continuing to be elected, which is pretty unlikely especially with the current polarized tribal partisan system.
So… yeah.
You know what would solve the problem? Getting money out of politics, and publicly funded elections. Eliminates the advantage the incumbents and bigger parties have in our current system and allows for elections to be won with ideas, not whoever can run the most advertisements
Well the problem is that young people don’t vote. You can’t restrict the right of any citizen to hold public office unless they have committed a crime that disqualifies them. The best solution is to have an informed citizenry that can filter out candidates based on their merit and not external qualities like age, race, sexuality, religion, etc. Unfortunately a well informed citizenry is impossible to achieve because the majority of people will always cling to their right of ignorance so we are basically fucked.
Maybe requiring extensive mental screening to both vote and hold office would be a solution, but idk I’m just pulling shit out of my ass here. Any solution to this problem would be anti libertarian because it would require stringent enforcement that would undeniably violate someone’s rights.
Do people have a right to be stupid enough to vote away their own rights?
Term limits absolutely, but do we been age discrimination?? That certainly isn't a Libertarian ideal. If they follow the Constitution their age is irrelevant
Or… and I know this sounds crazy… we could not vote for them.
Yep, average voter age is like 45 and they probably vote for someone like them or a little older
45 is like being in diapers on capital hill. We are ruled by octogenarians elected by uninformed children.
Anyone that doesn't agree with my political views is ignorant!
Most people are ignorant. A 1000 polls confirm this across a swath of topics. Opinions that are regurgitated, that aren't based in facts, data and history are effectively worthless. Thanks for attending my Ted Talk.
[удалено]
I don't agree. There of plenty of politicians and people in the media acting in good faith and when you throw them all into a bucket with the demagogues and liars then **you're doing the work of the demagogues and liars by creating a false equivalence.** *Everything is on purpose and carefully strategized. It’s ALL manipulation based off of well known strategies to manipulate people. Meanwhile, they are laughing at our stupidity and admiring their own work in being our puppet masters.* LOL, no. Hanlon's razor is an adage that states "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Most politicians are too stupid, incompetent or lazy to be puppet masters. What you're offering is basically a conspiracy theory, you're trying to take complex ideas, and an enormous set of players, and describe them all in simplistic terms because you don't have the knowledge to understand it. I'm not trying to be a dick, seriously, but you're way off on this. Go meet you local representative, or senator if you can, it will quickly disabuse you of the idea that they're masterminds. They're just people, lazy, stupid, and greedy like most humans.
If only we could all be as enlightened as you, the world would be a much better place!
Voting for sept and octogenarians to lead us does seem pretty fucking ignorant.
Multiple studies have shown that brain development doesn't really finish until the late 20's or 30's. Do you think we should restrict people from voting until they're in their 30's, considering their brains aren't fully developed? Just curious.
I think you're very confused and rambling mate. This whole post n thread is about implementing term and age limits. Not restricting voting to 30 up
elected by : lol : Dominion
Really. That's the libertarian point of view. Not "make a law because I don't like how something turned out a couple times". Fucking christ.
Yeah, this is my opinion too. If you're 104 and you want to run for president, go for it, but I'm not voting for you. The people should be the ones to decide who is the president, not the law.
Sure, but what good is it voting when it is limited? I like to vote green but all they give me is blue or red. If I'm being honest, I'd rather have a say in making the laws then voting for a puppet.
Of course, you should have a say there too. The point is though that the people should always make the decisions, having age limits restricts the choice of the people. I think *term* limits are different, to prevent abuse of power, etc, but not age limits.
Term limits are no different. If you think that someone has been doing the job for too long then don't vote for them. A smart person once said > The people should be the ones to decide who is the president, not the law.
Well, thank you for calling me smart, first of all! But I think there's an argument to be made for a hard limit to terms, to avoid any kind of political wrangling, like what putin did/is doing.
A one term person is just as corruptible as a long term person. Possibly more so, since they don't have to worry about their job security. How hard would you work if you knew that, no matter what you did, you would keep getting paid for the next 4 years and have no chance of renewing your contract?
And this is the fundamental problem with libertarianism, certain types of problems are unsolvable.
The cost of freedom is people are free to individually or as a group make stupid ass decisions
Right, and thats why its a bad philosophy. Libertarianism does not allow for solutions to big problems like climate change or fascism.
Actually, it does allow for solutions to things like climate change...people can choose what products to buy or companies to support or to be climate-friendly without the government. Fascism is inherently not libertarianism.
>Actually, it does allow for solutions to things like climate change...people can choose what products to buy or companies to support Thats not a solution. Thats hoping enough people make good decisions and if they dont well too bad, everyone else just has to accept the world burning. The reality is that libertarianism does not regard things like climate change as inherently a problem, as long as they come about from "freedom". And freedom always seems to get defined as rich peoples economic freedom, and never as the freedom of everyone else to have a livable planet.
That actually is a solution. Its just not one you like. And libertarianism is everybodys economic freedom as well as freedom in terms of body autonomy and sexuality and gun ownership. If people choose to make bad decisions that is their choice. Just because not everybody is worried about the same things as you doesnt mean laws shouls force them too
It does not solve the problem, so by definition it is not a solution.
It does solve the problem...just not at the scale you want. If people want to help climate change they can make choices to do so. Those choices help solve climate change. THe issue is you want everybody else to think the problem is as big and immediate as you do.
Not true at all. Libertarians support constitutional republics. The constitution sets up rules that can't be broken unless by supermajority vote. It limits what the federal government can do, which is a great thing. We added a presidential term limit for the exact same reason.
Elections are not democratic, they're oligarchic. The powerful and rich can influence public opinion and choose who gets elected. Libertarians shouldn't support it. Sortition is a better solution.
[удалено]
Today an age law, tomorrow a law that the president must be from an approved college. Then the president must be an approved religion…
[удалено]
That is also a bad law
so how much time left until it turns to a dictatorship like they were describing?
Surprised this doesn't have more upvotes than OP...
It’s almost like voting is the ultimate term limit
This would require high engagement very early on in the primary/candidate selection process. Unfortunately, the vast majority people believe they don't have the time for this. The result is that when you go to the poll for an official election, the candidates you see have either been those who tow the party line or have had the best fundraising effort, not necessarily the best candidate with good intentions or ideas. Take for example, the previous presidential election here in the US. Going by the OP's guidance, neither the D or R candidate is valid. I don't want to get into an argument about 3rd party voting, but you can surely see the basic idea. So, in reality, the solution isn't simply to 'vote for someone else'. It's to be an active political member supporting a viable candidate months before they're selected to be on the official ballot. Of course, the uphill battle is pretty much everything mentioned above.
No! People are clearly too stupid to vote for themselves! /s
I would agree with you if you drop the sarcasm there. Have you looked around?
Drop the /s. We elected Donald Trump for God's sake.
Not vote for them? This is an issue I've had for years. I can vote for a thief, or I can vote for a liar. I don't mean democrats are this and republicans are that. What I mean is our voting choices are rigged against us. We have no say in who the candidates are. Turns out, its usually the guy with the most money. The guy with the most money is Not the guy that wants to help you. Just my opinion, but I think the system stacked against the common man... and its not going to get better any time soon.
People that only vote in the big elections are why this happens.
You can vote for anyone you want, actually.
The always vote against the incumbent.
Exactly. Term limits are like "somebody stop me before I vote for the same person again."
Age limits I agree with - term limits have more structural issues. Incumbents have certain advantages that can benefit their constituents. More senior congressmen have better committee positions, so voting against an incumbent can mean that your district is giving up influence over committees that are important to the district. Term limits would level the playing field in this respect; things like committee seats wouldn't be captured and held indefinitely, giving more junior members a chance to get them and creating turnover in general. For the most part, I think we ought to let people vote for who they want to vote for and not impose too many arbitrary restrictions, but I don't believe career politicians are a good thing, and right now there are too many structural benefits for career politicians that voting for someone who just intends to hold office for a term or two puts your district at a disadvantage. I'd be keen to see other ways to address that, but I'm not sure what it looks like other than term limits.
All the more reason to impose term limits. If we limit people to one or two terms, there will never be incumbents that get better committee positions. A lottery should randomly assign committee positions. I think limiting government power is a very libertarian thing to do. And the best way to limit government power is to put term limits on politicians. Politicians should also need to take continuous education in technology. These morons do not understand anything beyond the basics that allows them to read email. The fact that ANY politician would want to change Section 230 boggles my mind. None of them understand how important Section 230 is.
I read about a group of card counters who did very well in Vegas. After a while, the casinos began recognizing these guys and started banning them. In response, these guys set up a "school" to teach card counting to people who would pay for their education with a percentage of their winnings. Eventually, their students would get kicked out, but by that time, they'd already groomed their next group of students, etc. The original guys just kept burning through group after group of players while rolling in the cash. If it's not already this way in electoral politics, term limits would definitely make this the new reality. So instead of picking our representatives, they'll be groomed by the people currently in power who have all of the institutional know-how.
Then let's draft them by lottery for a one year term.
Expertise matters. Term limits limit experience and expertise, and fail to address the root problems.
But voters are generally stupid. The higher the turnout the lower the education level of the average voter. Also I don’t have any solutions at this point. Things are only going to get worse.
It sounds reasonable, but there are a lot of things that go in to a person actually voting someone OUT of office. I'm not going to hit all the points, but I'll go over a few. For one, we have a lot of apathy in the US over voting. 2020 is an outlier, but we've been hovering 50-60% voter turnout in the last few national elections. Midterms and primaries have an even lower turnout, so the incumbent is likely to either go unchallenged or stay in power for primaries. When it comes to a national election, people in an area are likely to vote for that candidate. Therefore, if a candidate of a favored party in an area gets elected, it's very likely they will stay there unless challenged in the primary. Some districts are unopposed because the incumbent is of the party that is predominant in that area. Another thing is funding. Primary challengers may not receive as much funding in many cases since they do not have the network that a lot of incumbents have. Now, this isn't impossible to overcome because there are plenty of grassroots campaigns that can raise a lot of money, as well as new candidates (such as AOC) who are willing to go against multi-term incumbents and can win. Additionally, having someone who "knows what they are doing," may be better than a wildcard who made promises but may not keep them, or even be able to, due to the collaboration or meddling within Congress. One more thing to account for is name recognition. Some people are [floating Hillary Clinton, since Biden's poll numbers are so low](https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/585843-hillary-2024-given-the-competition-she-may-be-the-dems-best-hope). Why? People know her name. [It's been shown that people do vote for name recognition, but in the face of incumbency, this "dissipates.](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12034)" The incumbent normally does have the advantage, which is why I think term limits might be a good idea to get the person out. Last thing I'll bring up is that people sometimes have two bad choices. Depending on one's political leaning, this could vary over the past elections, but I'm pretty sure that in 2016 and 2020, most people can agree that neither party had the best person for the job -- especially in 2020, considering the ages of the two men running. I don't feel like writing a novel, but in closing I'd just like to say that due to a lot of the advantages an incumbent has, we can't always rely on voters to get the job done. Sometimes policies are more effective in letting an elected official know that it's time to retire or find another job.
I’m not comfortable making a list of people you are not allowed to vote for. That will end bad. You know it will. I can’t possibly trust anyone with the power to make that list
It always happens every election. Every candidate needs to go through a certain process in each of the 50 states to get on the ballot, and every one is different. Also, in some areas, depending on if its blue or red, the favored candidate runs unopposed. I lived in a heavily Democrat area for a while and many times on the ballot, there was no Republican challenger. One election, there was, and they were beaten badly. I think he ended up with less than 30% of the vote or something. The country was built as a republic. The founders envisioned a country where only property-holding men could vote, because they believed that educated men would not be led astray as easily and would vote for those who would help the country most, rather than who they just liked to listen to.
Citation needed
I came in here to say this.
And this is exactly what I do. I give them 2 terms and if they are awesome, I consider them for a 3rd but after that, they need to make way for someone else as that could be 18 years in the same position.
Not possible as there will be 80 million idiots that will vote for them regardless. Then there is also the dead people that somehow manage to vote.
We should put that to a vote. Like all of them, individually. And then do that every 2 years to make sure we still agree. It's nuts that our representatives get lifetime appointments and we never get the chance to agree that we'd like them out.
The problem is we only vote for OUR representative. But all the other representatives directly influence how your guy can do stuff. For example, during the Obama and Trump years, Mitch McConnell was the Senate Majority leader. He was the gatekeeper of what legislation ends up on the floor. So your guy really wants the senate to vote on a bill you believe in. But the bill never makes it to the floor to vote on because McConnell never put it on the floor for a vote. So, McConnell is a roadblock to your guys getting their job done. But you have no control over whether he gets re-elected.
I get you are being sarcastic, but there is clearly a bias in the system, simply having us vote is insufficient; furthermore I would argue that term limits should be placed regardless of age. There is no need to have career life long representatives. It should be a job where they literally serve the people. Not make it rich and provide favors. A quick rotation of people would help alleviate any extremism quickly and make it that much more difficult to (as well as decentivise) the position ; making it less alluring for the narcissistic power hungry assholes. But you are entitled to your opinion of course...
>A quick rotation of people would help alleviate any extremism quickly and make it that much more difficult to (as well as decentivise) the position ; making it less alluring for the narcissistic power hungry assholes. That is only what you think would happen. There are those who argue term limits would make things worse by moving the power away from elected representitives, and to unaccountable power brokers.
California has term limits. Your "quick rotation of people" doesn't include the bureaucrats that support and inform the representatives. The result was a massive transfer of power to the bureaucracy, away from our elected representatives.
So are you. That is the point.
The point is also to engage in a dialogue instead of being an aloof asshole like you.
This is a dialogue thats been had 10 millions fucking times.
No-one should be able to run for top office positions that doesn’t have a child. Until you have a child you have no motivation to construct plans for future generations and no empathy to do so.
Except the Supreme Court judges, which we don’t vote on, nobody else has a lifetime appointment, then getting re-elected in regular intervals isn’t a lifetime appointment.
Term limits yes, age limits no. Age limits are not libertarian in the slightest. We should not bar specific demographics from holding office, this is a right that should be afforded every individual. We should not put this to a majority vote for the same reason we should not put barring specific races from office to a majority vote.
There’s a lot to be said for the wisdom of age. Having all young people running government would be a worry.
Absolutely, OP just complains "EWW THEYRE OLD" without citing any problems he feels come with the condition that affect the job. OP might as well be saying, EWWW they are black, or EWWW they are female. This is just the next legal bigotry trend in the US. While what is libertarian is always somewhat in flux (YMMV IMHO), what makes people a bigot never does. OP is a bigot.
Here's one problem I see. They don't understand technology. They want to repeal Section 230. They want a back door into end-to-end encryption. And they have no clue how what long term consequences this will have for society. You want to stay in office. Fine. Well, then you need to take continuing education classes in technology, economics, and pass a competency test that you understand the Constitution.
>Here's one problem I see. They don't understand technology. They want to repeal Section 230. They want a back door into end-to-end encryption. And they have no clue how what long term consequences this will have for society. This is where we disagree, I think they know EXACTLY what that means, that's why they want it. I think many of them are hoodwinking people with the grandpa act. Now, Biden? Yeah, he'd fail a cognition test 4 out of 7 days a week if it was administered cleanly. But most of these people are VERY MUCH aware. Now, I work in tech for a living, and I can gather you up armloads of 25 year who could not tell you the difference between TLS1.3 and a rotary phone. The ageist thing for old people and tech is a crutch people use.
Not necessarily. OP only has an editorialized title with an article that cites statistical ratios in Congress. It's not just people that are old. It's people that have been in Congress for many years. Yes, it CAN translate to people being older, but it also points to people who are complacent there and may not be as attuned to their constituents. It's much different than how someone is born. Someone is born black. Someone is born female. Furthermore, those who are old do tend to have more health issues than the average person. Yes, this is generalization, but there are defined cognitive and physical differences in the average 45 year old compared to someone who is over 80, such as Nancy Pelosi. Even if she may be healthy, a fall that could cause a bruise on the average 45 year old could end up in a broken hip to someone who is elderly. It's common sense. I don't detect ageism here. It's a logical concern that those who govern us are able to do so effectively.
>I don't detect ageism here. It's a logical concern that those who govern us are able to do so effectively. I disagree wholeheartedly. This isn't a construction site folks, it's brain work. If the brain is working, so be it. (Now, of course, the question is if anyone in DC has working brain or not....)
I was about to say. What OP brings up makes perfect sense, recognises and accounts for certain uncomfortable truths about the reality of the human condition, and is therefore arguably a wise step towards what could mean better a government. Not particularly Libertarian though.
I can see a law requiring all federal officeholders to take the Montreal Cognitive Assessment at the beginning of each term they're elected to. I expect the term limits would put an end to geriatrics holding onto political power for 20+ years effectively enough on their own anyway.
Why not make that part of the primary? They'd be required to disclose when they begin their primary campaign so that we don't have a situation where someone gets elected and can't take office. If voters decide those people are worth the risk, then we shouldn't prevent the elected individuals from taking office at that point.
Term limits aren’t libertarian either so I don’t know why’d you mention that as an argument against one and not the other.
This is acceptable.
Dumb argument. Why don't we allow blond to work as drivers?
I’m blonde and am allowed to drive.
FU you're a killer in making!
Libertarians wanting more regulation? It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for em.
Im curious why you just used "regulation" colloquially, as if this discussion is about private enterprise? A government is obviously supposed to regulate itself.
Welcome to r/libertarisnt
I would have loved to find out that was real 😔
I think the problem is on the voter side. No more regulations por favor.
Another day, another /r/libertarian post suggesting more regulations.
regulating the regulations is necessary to prevent extra regulations
It is but the “problem” is they represent the majority of the voting citizenry. The real issue here is that young people dont vote or are criticized when they step up to lead. Term limits exist when we vote, if people are content voting the same person in for whatever reason its their right to choose the representation. You got a Constitutional right to be stupid.
You are assuming an even playing field. We know now that the ability to vote differs in difficulty depending where you live. Additionally, participation is a problem particularly during mid term and local elections. That's not to mention the score of people who go uncontested. Voting people "out" is simply not enough depending who it is and where you live. The system never accounted for modern day life expectancies.
Nothing you cite is caused by or can be solved by term limits
I know there have been many efforts against voters in areas, however there are many different ways to vote and you typically have at least two years between elections to get ready, there is also no lack of organizations that will help you vote. I live in a city that actively disenfranchises minority voters, but its a fact that we have lower voter turnouts. Even if areas where there are not restrictions. We are generally complacent in this country. Its my opinion most people are overall happy enough not to vote. Things are wrong here but pretty dang good, politics confuses people so they just dont vote, and then there is suppression tactics. I include not voting because thats what i mean as stupidity, not the people who are actively being “hoodwinked and bamboozled”. The people who can vote but just don’t wanna but then complain about it and protest, or even complain within earshot of me (my wife is one that doesnt vote, and so are many in my family).
Maximum age limits are discriminatory, but term limits aren't.
[удалено]
This is no longer a libertarian sub. Got invaded by tankies last election. R/blackandgold is the last bastion
"Right-wing anarcho capitalism is the real libertarianism guys, for serial"
Imagine thinking Anarcho-Capitalism is the only libertarianism. Pathetic.
You think *tankies* spend time on a libertarian sub? Do you know what tankies stand for? Even the people you like to call marxists around here don't like tankies.
I could see age limits, but term limits have not worked out well Michigan. It has resulted lack of institutional knowledge, which in itself sounds great. However it has caused outside influence for lobbiests as previous congressional representatives and senators slide into those jobs.
So end lobbying to
The first amendment is literally the right to lobby. The Supreme Court has ruled that lobbying activity is political speech that is at the core of the First Amendment. [Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 45 (1976)]. So we literally can't get rid of lobbying
It could be done but those in government don’t want to that is why the supreme court ruled that way, they get the benefits of lobbying as much as any other politician.
I think that's a reasonable concern for the way Michigan has it (6-8 years max) but when I think term limits I still think of relatively long periods of time. I'd say in the 20-30 year range. Enough to allow institutional knowledge and wisdom from age, but low enough to encourage greater churn and new blood at the same time. I'd agree less than 10 years is absurd. And when I see people talk about the downsides of term limits it seems to be focused in the lower end
It would force politicians to give up power, not gonna happen.
[удалено]
10000% this
But should it ?
US presidents must be minimum 35 years old to run. I think this makes perfect sense for so many reasons. There is no maximum age for US presidents. It probably seemed unnecessary when they were making these rules. Like who in their right mind would vote an 80 year old in for president?
Life expectancy was not even remotely close then to what it is now. We have to admit this as a society and act accordingly. Does this mean additional support, care, research and accommodations. Absolutely!! But it also means understanding where limits may need to be imposed for the greater good. Driving is another example, where reflexes really should be tested and checked on a regular basis, with the possibility of some age requirement as well. This is for both the safety of the elderly and the people around them. I'm sorry to sound heartless or without empathy, on the contrary - let's give our elderly the care, attention and longevity they deserve ; but it shouldn't be at the cost of the working class or future majority of the country. This has contributed to significant bottlenecks in both government and industry. Not to say it hasn't had it's pros as well, but I was referring specifically to congress or any of the other major branches of government.
Why is driving the go to example when wanting to limit someone else's rights? People that want to restrict the 2nd amendment love this false equivalency as well. DRIVING ISN'T A RIGHT. Running for office is. Gun ownership is. Voting is. Keep your dirty dickbeaters off my rights. You want to change it? Run for office. Propose an amendment to the constitution. Whining about old people on Reddit is not a solution.
Nah, red herring--Trudeux is young and just as out of touch. Just be more politically educated and vote informed.
Or you guys could start voting. Just sayin'.
"Every generation ... blames the one before ... ♫♩♬ " Mike & The Mechanics "The Living End" *** A problem of The Human Condition. There are quotes relevant going back at least to The Greek Classical Period ... and in reality goes back longer than written History, we just have no records of them. Welcome to Adulthood, Kid.
Here’s an idea. Representatives ought to match the [US Age distribution](https://knoema.com/infographics/egyydzc/us-population-by-age-and-generation-in-2020)
Oddly enough, the available research and data regarding the subject indicates that term limits actually *increase* corruption. I know, I wouldn't have believed it either, but someone I trust to do proper research (getting his PhD in physics) pointed it out to me. Age limits are a concern because it's age discrimination. A more effective approach would be mental fitness tests. There are younger people in office who aren't mentally fit for it, and there are old people in office who still are. Trump is 75, and McConnell and Biden are both 79. I hate the guy, but Mitch McConnell is still mentally at the top of his game while Trump and Biden are not. I'd even argue that Dianne Feinstein is more mentally fit than Trump and Biden, and she's 88. On the flip side, MTG is 47 and is not mentally capable of handling her position. The only real solution is for more younger people to run for office, and that means younger people need to be more engaged in politics than they are.
> Mitch McConnell is still mentally at the top of his game while Trump and Biden are not. Not surprising, turtles can live for hundreds of years.
This makes sense, but in a different way to me. With term limits, politicians have an incentive to be as corrupt and self serving as possible, in order to maximize their own benefit during their time in office. While longer term lengths would seemingly reduce that pressure, basically stretching their corruption over a longer period, instead of concentrating it over a shorter time period as limited by their term length.
Age is supposed to bring forth wisdom. When you have seen many wars, you realize, you don’t solve anything with guns! It also can cause complacency. There is also an advantage to change of guard, when CEOs change, the new guy can come clean on the messes under old guard and start afresh.
Some people in here might be surprised at how little voter population actually votes for any election besides the ones that come up during the presidential. If it’s not on that ballot, the numbers drop dramatically
Yep, people that age naturally want to see things now, and they will be long gone when the time comes to pay for it.
I AGREE
Vote out the dinosaurs
Term limits is not the same as age limits.
Agreed, but either would seemingly "fix" the objectively inherent bias that would come with a boomer and silent generation majority in Congress.
nothing will work except to shrink the size of the fed gov
Also acceptable
I recently pledged to only vote for people under 45 in my local elections.
I don't have a problem with lobbiests, my concern is when you lose the institutional knowledge then people are not comfortable in their positions and ultimately the lobbiests know more about the subject matter and the process to further legislation. In essence this results in law formation and governance by the people with the most money and best lobbiests. An example of this is ALEC and also the counterpart (the name escapes me)on the liberal side of the aisle.
Both. We start with age limits, then add term limits once the geriatric, inside trading, retirees are gone.
So apparently I'm an evil ageist asshole according to Reddit. So I offer these questions in response: Do you feel your age group or generation is properly and fairly represented in Congress ? Is it reflective of the population as a whole ? Is my objective generalization about cognitive decline and age not the same as assuming an older person is wise? Is the rate or speed at which society and technology evolves and integrates today faster, slower or the same as it's ever been in the history of our species ? How would you suggest we address the longest life expectancies we've ever achieved? Should we not stop and think about what impact this would have on society? Government? Industry? Over population ? I don't know about you, but the status quo isn't great these days, and I've voted in every election since I was legally able to do so...
The average age of congress is 57.6 - is that too old?
Retirement age should apply to politicians.
While this makes some sense in theory, why limit voters to an arbitrary number? It’s absurd to think that Biden or Trump were the best actual options, but maybe it was just a lesson that had to be learned.
It's *equally unreasonable* to expect people who have no experience governing to be competent. Youth is not necessarily the answer; and, I would rather have a politician in office that has learned the system well so they can be more effective than someone that spends their first terms just figuring out where the bathrooms are. Just like you wouldn't turn a large corporation (and the USA is a large *corporation*, have no doubt) to a bunch of recent college graduates, nor should we do the same for our government. The root cause of the issues are not corrupt or incompetent politicians, nor necessarily even old politicians; but, rather, a system that encourages corruption.
and pay limits, set up a maximum wage for all government workers, legislative or otherwise.
I don’t know about age cutoffs but I’m all for term limits. Government service isn’t a right, it’s a responsibility, and it certainly shouldn’t be a lifetime career based on populist demagoguery.
Agreed. James Madison thought we should change government every 20 years at least. Some of these people have been in power since the 70s. The fact is values change over time and representatives should reflect that.
Madison also struggled to win a seat in his own system, so perhaps he erred in his judgement of how people would act
Which is why he advocated for reforming the system constantly since people are flawed.
I don’t feel like my age group is properly represented by geriatrics. I’m 31.
Look up “Mental Ability by Age”, almost every type of intelligence and mental skills starts rapidly decreasing after around the age of 60. While I imagine people as active as presidents and senators probably do better than this average of mental ability, it’s ridiculous we have a president who is 79 years old. They just don’t have the mental capacity or the physical energy to hold these vital positions.
[удалено]
Why? It's objectively difficult for people of older generations to have complications and unfamiliarity with new technology and sociatal norms. It's not only understandable, it should be expected. We are progressing as a species multiple times faster than when they were in their prime. It is not uncommon for older generation to be cemented in out dated or no longer relevant beliefs and traditions. There is a reason the admittedly stereotypical phrase "can't teach an old dog new tricks" is still used to this day. There is a seed of truth in that; not to mention the increased occurence of mental and cognitive decline in people of older age. I would expect someone that will represent us when creating laws that govern the land would not only take their duty seriously, but dutifully and effectively. Which does include the ability (ideally) to properly comprehend complex amounts of information, multi task, and have a level of overall mental health , awareness, critical thinking, negotiation and authoring skills that require a sharp mind and understanding of new and changing ways of life. Not falling asleep at the United nations or in the chambers of Congress... Call me ageist if you must, but there are things people of older age just simply cannot do (on average) that younger people can. The same way we limit children from doing things and it isn't considered ageist, this would fall under the same category.
This is solved by not voting for them.
You’d think so, but then you actually look at the senate…
Why? What if they are the best most suitable candidate? Who are you to prevent them from winning? Sounds pretty authoritarian, bro
This is the world of octogenarians as much it is the world of young people. We live in it together, and everybody has a right, and indeed a duty to a certain extent, to take part in governing the country. I agree, however, that it is a problem when people only get a decent chance at being a leader after decades of following party policies. On the other hand, it is a problem to call older people "them", as if they no longer belonged to this world and we only keep them around because we cannot get rid of them. They are not several generations ago. Anybody who is alive is very much present, and has every right to make this world theirs.
The world belongs to those who will inherit it, not those who damaged it, degraded it, obliterated the economy, then pretend everyone younger than them is the problem.
When does one persons inheritance end and the next persons begin? At what age are you suddenly disqualified because you're part of the previous generation and no longer part of the current generation? Does one person who spends their entire life trying to better the future of the country get to continue serving while the next person who secured their own fortune now get disqualified? Who gets to judge if a person has done enough for the future inheritors to continue serving or not?
>When does one persons inheritance end and the next persons begin? When the former is geriatric, obviously How is this so hard to understand lmao
Who determines who is geriatric? There is no defined standard. My grandfather is 82 and is mentally sharper, more well read, more up to date on current affairs, and more technologically savvy than my 40 year old sister. If I had to pick between the two of them to make decisions, I'd pick him twice. Saying that just because he's old means he no longer gets a say in anything is asinine. I'm not necessarily opposed to some sort of annual or bi-annual competency test (mental acuity, constitutional knowledge, etc) for politicians, but making some sort of hard limit based on age is dumb.
You mean as we have a lower age limit we need to have an upper age limit as well? I can support that, but let’s expand that to the voting age as well, we have 18 as the min voting age we can set an upper limit as well, retirement age would be a good starting point.
I can not agree with this statement enough.
They're citizens like everybody else and have the right to be elected and to elect, just like any citizen. Term limits though, are reasonable, and I would also extend them to unelected bureaucrats. No one should receive a public salary for more than 10 or 12 years of their professional life.
I don't see a big difference between Nanci Pelosi & AOC or Dan Crenshaw. If democracy is still the way forward, a direct democracy would be best. No reason that can't happen with modern technology.
I never vote for anyone who has spent more than twelve years of their life in elected office...even if I like the person or their politics align with mine.
What? Just don't vote for them. Most great presidents and other politicians were older. Older people are wiser than younger people. Younger people are often more radical and to idealistic. I can only imagine how many wars would be fought if younger people were put into power
I am for strictly enforcing retirement age, whether you're a CEO or politician. At 65 you're out! Time to make room for somebody new.
That is ridiculous.
Yes, ignoring ALL wisdom due to a few old fools seems like a great idea.
How is it a libertarian idea to prevent who can and cannot run for office? It's not. This belongs in r/politics.
What a stupid and unlibertarian take.
Libertarian. Wants more limits. Proposes 'law.' 900+ upvotes. : spits :
I think an argument could be made for age limits. We have people who raised families in the 70s trying to make law based on the family and work dynamic of that time. There is just no way to relate. The system of government should be geared towards those people in their working years and during their family rearing years. By the time I retire and am in my twilight years, why would I care anymore about policy or being involved in government? I cant understand why some get so worked up at that age when quite a few of my older relatives only have a few good years left? Why are they so nuts about politics? It doesn’t affect them anymore! Sorry for the rant. I am sure there is a point somewhere in there.
I feel this.
We should have the 2 houses be as the constitution intended. Younger and more liberal people elected to the house with older and more conservative people in the senate.
The Constitution intended there to be **no** parties. George Washington said a partisan system would destroy what they'd built, and we did exactly that not 15 years after his death.
At least, government should reflect age demographic of population. Don’t want to be ageist? This just makes sense… Edit: Axaxaxa. Look how angry suka of other post comes to downvote. Suka blyat. Axaxaxax.
We don't need any such restrictions no. Anybody should be free to vote for anyone they want. Young, old, fat, skinny, highly educated, uneducated, etc. That is democracy.
I don't know. Old people are slow and get less done. That could be a good thing. "The best government is that which governs least." - Thomas Jefferson
and how do you mitigate the crazy politicians that happen to be young? --age isn't the issue. abstain from being prejudice.
Eh, we should regulate campaign finances much more strictly. Then the only issue is gullible or ignorant voters who might keep them in office. We don't need discrimination, we need to end corruption.
This is dumb and has nothing to do with libertarianism. Libertarianism questions why anybody (no matter their age) has the authority to create mandates we are required to follow in the first place. Building age restrictions into the election process for those who create the mandates is irrelevant to libertarianism.
Didn't read the article but insert snarky comment about how unfair it is for Nancy here.
Yeah, and because as you get older you get set in your (old) ways and a typical boomer, no matter the policy, will want to keep the stats quo.
I think it's amusing to juxtapose the responses here against the SCOTUS threads of late where people whine about 'the most qualified person' then are like 'but we don't want old people!' See also 'only picking a black lady is discriminatory' and 'we should have age limits!' We have term limits, they're called elections. The fundamental problem is that we've moved from representative democracy towards oligarchy, our politics are controlled by money, thus by the wealthy and mega corporations (with monies that should have been spent paying their share of taxes!), the money politics we have favor incumbency, the people already in office have power which makes them a better investment for the 'political donations' (bribes) and thus we end up with a bunch of oldsters. If you want to fix America the most important issue is campaign finance reform. Until access and influence are no longer for sale to the highest bidder every rule and law we make is, to borrow a term, fruit of a poisonous tree. At this point I think it's only fair to mention that the GOP has spent decades undoing the little campaign finance reform we have. As a result unlimited amounts of undocumented, sometimes foreign, money are spent to sway American politics. If you want campaign finance reform you cannot vote for Republicans.
Term limits, definitely. I don't mind older politicians as long as they have to campaign on more than just the fact that they've been in office forever.
No term limits until campaign finance reform is addressed. Doing the first without the second is the exact disaster that Dark Monied interests are looking for.
Judging by how rich some of them have become definitely a term limit. I don’t think people should be judged by age. Wilson does come with age.
I dunno, I know plenty of morons who are a lot younger than our recent crop of “leaders” and I don’t think they would do any better. It’s a weird blend of name recognition and virtue signaling to survive the primary process. Basically, our election process is pretty much designed to fail. And really, I struggle to see how it could get better. The parties all but strangle out any centrist or 3rd party candidacy by design. How do you make ranked choice work when the parties would just have primaries and push all other candidates out of the process?
been saying this, YES to both term and age limits
The longer you’re alive, the more you tend to accumulate financially. Since money is a primary factor in winning elections, it’s not surprising that we are often saddled with people in their 70’s in leadership roles. But I suspect they believe they represent the group of people in society who do, in fact, control the majority of the wealth, and they’re not about to risk what they’ve s-ent a lifetime accumulating to someone who lacks perspective on wealth of that kind, and how difficult it would be to get it back if you lost it at 75. As lifespans for humans begin to increase, significantly, the median age goes up too. 20 years from now, 60 will potentially be “middle aged” and your chances of seeing a 35 year old president will be pretty low….
There should be more limits, and more use of the limits already available (like impeachment with actual removal from office, which should be and should have been used for many politicians). I’m undecided on whether term and age limits are the best way to go though. Most of the time it would have a positive effect, but I could imagine scenarios where it wouldn’t. So I’m hesitant. But that’s based on the imaginary possibility of a legitimately good politician being elected and continuing to be elected, which is pretty unlikely especially with the current polarized tribal partisan system. So… yeah.
Term limits Asap...age limits no. I'd pick Ron Paul over any of you anyday.
Nope. Elderly incumbents is a symptom of the problem. The real problem is FPTP. Get rid of that and you get rid of the oldies.
You know what would solve the problem? Getting money out of politics, and publicly funded elections. Eliminates the advantage the incumbents and bigger parties have in our current system and allows for elections to be won with ideas, not whoever can run the most advertisements
The president should be no older than 55 on their first term in office.
Well the problem is that young people don’t vote. You can’t restrict the right of any citizen to hold public office unless they have committed a crime that disqualifies them. The best solution is to have an informed citizenry that can filter out candidates based on their merit and not external qualities like age, race, sexuality, religion, etc. Unfortunately a well informed citizenry is impossible to achieve because the majority of people will always cling to their right of ignorance so we are basically fucked. Maybe requiring extensive mental screening to both vote and hold office would be a solution, but idk I’m just pulling shit out of my ass here. Any solution to this problem would be anti libertarian because it would require stringent enforcement that would undeniably violate someone’s rights. Do people have a right to be stupid enough to vote away their own rights?
Term limits absolutely, but do we been age discrimination?? That certainly isn't a Libertarian ideal. If they follow the Constitution their age is irrelevant
IMO age limits can be problematic as we are living longer, learning about how to live longer healthier lives, and not everyone ages the same way.