Arguing Against Term Limits
Term limits mask the underlying problem of modern democratic elections. They do not address the underlying issue, which is the modern framework itself which produces such trashy politicians.
Time limiting trashy politicians still does not remove the trashy politicians. It just means their buyers need to hire more of them.
The underlying problem is a governmental structure that encourages meritless, soul-selling, power hungry idiots to rise to power. With no vetting and no after-election oversight. We should fix the problem instead of band-aiding the symptoms.
Under current legacy frameworks, I get why some call for term limits. These politicians are generally self-serving, inept, and corrupt insiders. Their continuation in politics and their lifelong political careers is a hindrance to the nation. Many of them have never demonstrated a single trait we desire in politicians. Many of them have never even worked a job other than public service.
But we must recognize that requiring more of them will do nothing to fix the systemic issue. We’ll have the same result, just with more people hopping in and out.
Additionally, in what other profession are term limits an acceptable idea? Would you prefer us to remove all doctors with over eight years of experience in hospitals to ensure we have an adequate switching out? What about your own personal defense attorney? Would you prefer one fresh out of school to be in charge of your defense? Shall we term out engineers? Or accountants? Of course not. Term limits are never a practical solution or even a rational one.
Even further, there should not be bouncing between the two fields of politics and business. Term limits require this. But it’s dangerous, because it’s how we end up with Big Business executives or their lackeys securing political appointments that they then use to benefit the business when they leave. A politician should be a politician; a businessman a businessman. The common intersection of these, as in liberal democracy, must be completely shut off.
But our approach is not just to prevent an isolated class advantage. This applies equally to the other centralizer groups. All four centralizer groups should remain separate, in their own respective groups, so they can be managed appropriately. But the separation between the political arena and the others is the most important, as I attempted to outline in my power cycle article. Term limits destroy this, as it requires a constant revolving door of already powerful people (ie: other centralizers) to run for office.
Politicians are a necessity, as is a political system. Since we’re stuck with them, we would prefer very knowledgeable, skilled politicians in the leading roles directing the lives of millions. It is not like we cannot remove them through alternative means, especially if we make a better system. If a tyrant arises, we simply vote them out. We can also recall them. Even further, [in my ideal] we can override their policies, call for investigations into them, and even audit their finances. We have better options in our system for dealing with negative politicians than requiring term limits. This solves the actual issue, rather than band-aiding it with term limits.
With that said, I still do not desire one politician in the same political role indefinitely. Having temporary position-related limits could be beneficial. This ensures one person does not reside in charge of one area indefinitely. It is useful for various purposes to ensure a cycling occurs of positions, one of the most obvious being anti-corruption. But we still keep them all in the political arena, where their expertise belongs.
I’m also massively in favor of age limits. No more politburo geriatric ward, regardless of the political system. An initial thought is to cap this at 65. Maybe a starting age requirement of 35, for a total of 30 possible years of service. We don’t want people without enough life experience taking spots, but we also don’t want what we have right now. A middle ground for age would be suitable.
I find this as a more reasonable approach to the term limit issue. Term limits could still have their place in a generic rule by many, especially in one as degenerative as ours. But if we are to build a new system that is sustainable, term limits have to be tossed aside, as they produce far too many problems for their abysmal benefit.
If you enjoyed this article, give us a bookmark and check back often for new content. New articles every weekday.
Help us fight the censorship – Share this article!
Finally, please consider supporting my work. Every donation is immensely helpful to keep us growing.