Well a law is a hell of a lot harder to enforce if it’s not drawing a line somewhere in the sand, and I’d rather disqualify someone we should than qualify someone we shouldn’t
Perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, it should just be based on what we care about - competence, intelligence, experience, not being a raging psychopath… that kind of thing. Saying 65 is too old is no better than saying 35 is too young.
Youre entirely right. How exactly will you enforce a law that says “unless youre still sharp as a tack at 80”, though? There has to be a provable line or else the law is meaningless.
65 is supposed to be the age of retiremenr for a normal career
“Supposed to”
In Washington DC it’s 67. In Virginia it’s 61. In 1991 it was 57. It’s based on arbitrary convention, not for any medical reason.
Well, that should be standardized then, and 65 seems like a nice median
Based on what?
I’ve known high energy 80 year olds who were sharp as a tack and 50 year olds with early onset dementia or who were just plain nuts to begin with.
This isn’t about age.
Well a law is a hell of a lot harder to enforce if it’s not drawing a line somewhere in the sand, and I’d rather disqualify someone we should than qualify someone we shouldn’t
Perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, it should just be based on what we care about - competence, intelligence, experience, not being a raging psychopath… that kind of thing. Saying 65 is too old is no better than saying 35 is too young.
Youre entirely right. How exactly will you enforce a law that says “unless youre still sharp as a tack at 80”, though? There has to be a provable line or else the law is meaningless.