Note: I am not an expert in anything. Go ahead and ignore me. I’m just a random person thinking about and answering the prompt. These are just my ill formed opinions, feel free to CMV (even though I don’t take a hard stance) but please be respectful.
Maybe. I lean towards yes that at a certain point you’re way too old to be effective but I feel like the age caps and term limits arguments have some good points in multiple different positions. Which is my roundabout way of saying there are good points on either side but I hate saying that because of the connotations associated with it but here we are.
Anyway.
One argument I think actually holds water and relates to your question is: what age is the cutoff, and why did you pick it?
What criteria merits an age cap? If someone who met or exceeded the cap was able to “pass” the criteria you used for determining that number, what justification then do you have to deny them eligibility? “Because we said so” isn’t a good justification and amounts to age discrimination.
Also, now I fully admit this is a slippery slope fallacy but: once a limit is adopted, the barriers to changing that limit are lessened. Meaning if you cap it at 75 and society undergoes a significant cultural shift it is much easier to reduce it to 45 since there is a framework in place. Yes, this is a fallacy, but one I believe has some bureaucratic believability albeit in a very pessimistic Logan’s-Run-esque sense.
Counterpoint though: there are age minimums for certain positions like the presidency (probably others but I’m not sure) and the same fears of manipulation of the cutoff shenanigans have never born fruit. That said other age barriers are undergoing challenges so… it’s a bit muddy but something worth discussing. Yes, I just countered my counter point.
The current system is supposed to be that candidates run on merit and the people choose whom they believe is the best fit to represent their interests. This is supposed to counteract the election of unfit candidates. Which we clearly see has broken down in places (for a non-inflammatory example: that place that elected a dead person).
I don’t have a solution and all of this is to say it seems like common sense that at some point you have to be too old to do a demanding job like those listed, but when you sit down and try to define where the boundaries are the conversation gets complicated.
Note: I am not an expert in anything. Go ahead and ignore me. I’m just a random person thinking about and answering the prompt. These are just my ill formed opinions, feel free to CMV (even though I don’t take a hard stance) but please be respectful.
Maybe. I lean towards yes that at a certain point you’re way too old to be effective but I feel like the age caps and term limits arguments have some good points in multiple different positions. Which is my roundabout way of saying there are good points on either side but I hate saying that because of the connotations associated with it but here we are.
Anyway.
One argument I think actually holds water and relates to your question is: what age is the cutoff, and why did you pick it?
What criteria merits an age cap? If someone who met or exceeded the cap was able to “pass” the criteria you used for determining that number, what justification then do you have to deny them eligibility? “Because we said so” isn’t a good justification and amounts to age discrimination.
Also, now I fully admit this is a slippery slope fallacy but: once a limit is adopted, the barriers to changing that limit are lessened. Meaning if you cap it at 75 and society undergoes a significant cultural shift it is much easier to reduce it to 45 since there is a framework in place. Yes, this is a fallacy, but one I believe has some bureaucratic believability albeit in a very pessimistic Logan’s-Run-esque sense.
Counterpoint though: there are age minimums for certain positions like the presidency (probably others but I’m not sure) and the same fears of manipulation of the cutoff shenanigans have never born fruit. That said other age barriers are undergoing challenges so… it’s a bit muddy but something worth discussing. Yes, I just countered my counter point.
The current system is supposed to be that candidates run on merit and the people choose whom they believe is the best fit to represent their interests. This is supposed to counteract the election of unfit candidates. Which we clearly see has broken down in places (for a non-inflammatory example: that place that elected a dead person).
I don’t have a solution and all of this is to say it seems like common sense that at some point you have to be too old to do a demanding job like those listed, but when you sit down and try to define where the boundaries are the conversation gets complicated.