It will take hold of you, and you will regret it's absence

- a stupid idiot who thought they could explain why arbitrary age limits are a poor heuristic for experience to a /r/politics user

god typing that out really sells the stupid idiot part huh

  • RION [she/her]
    ·
    10 months ago

    My argument is that using an age requirement as a stand in for "experience" is arbitrary and inaccurate. You could have multiple terms as a congressional representative under your belt crafting and voting on legislation, representing your constituents, working on committees, etc. and still be barred from the presidency on the basis that you're not experienced enough. Meanwhile, someone aged 35 and a day who doesn't know what a congress is apparently has the experience needed.

    And I don't even really care about the age minimum in a vacuum, I just think it's silly that people call out a maximum age limit as discriminatory but don't bat an eyelash at the literal age discrimination already enshrined in the constitution. Civil religion and founding father worship is a hell of a drug

    • AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      10 months ago

      I'm not defending any liberal democracy here. Any system where the people in charge of advancement are the ones with a shot at that advancement, there'll be conflicts of interest like this. If a constitutional amendment barring old people from something went in front of a room full of old people who happen to be potentials, that thing's getting shot down faster than a bolt of lightning.

      I will only argue in the hypothetical, that there's no test for youthful inexperience, but cognitive decline can be tested. Although that fact is also quite meaningless in a system where the doctor applying the test can be bought off.

      My point is actually capitalism bad, a socialist country will figure this stuff out one way or another.