Because exceptionalism is a poison regardless of your political philosophy - other people can do an equally good job.
If someone else can do the job equally as well, why must they also do it? So someone can do a thing and someone else can they must swap roles every now and then just because?
Why is it necessary for power to be held by a singular person for so long?
Why is it necessary for a role to be changed on some arbitrary basis?
If I go to the grocery and see the same person running the counter. Am I supposed to go “um excuse me, but you were here last week, and someone equally qualified needs to have a turn”?
Those aren’t answers to my question - but sure, I’ll answer yours: term limits are a safeguard against one person consolidating power. Having them ensures that there will be political structures subordinate to them that survive a transfer of power, and thus said power can’t be singly consolidated.
Distribution of power is a very basic concept of communism, I think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went “this guy’s good at his job we should have him leading things” are the exact same people who can go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
In a ideal situation this sort of failsafe wouldn’t be needed - but your line is “The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power”. What if, just suppose, the people putting that person into power aren’t the proletariat? A totally wild hypothetical here I know, when would something like THAT ever happen. But those people, by your hypothetical would then be the ones with the power to go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
So when I say term limits aren’t necessary if the people have the power and therefore the same power putting someone into a role is the same power that can remove them, your response is “but what if people don’t have power”. If they don’t have power then they don’t have power. You didn’t address what I said.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went “this guy’s good at his job we should have him leading things” are the exact same people who can go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
If someone else can do the job equally as well, why must they also do it? So someone can do a thing and someone else can they must swap roles every now and then just because?
Why is it necessary for a role to be changed on some arbitrary basis?
If I go to the grocery and see the same person running the counter. Am I supposed to go “um excuse me, but you were here last week, and someone equally qualified needs to have a turn”?
Those aren’t answers to my question - but sure, I’ll answer yours: term limits are a safeguard against one person consolidating power. Having them ensures that there will be political structures subordinate to them that survive a transfer of power, and thus said power can’t be singly consolidated.
Distribution of power is a very basic concept of communism, I think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went “this guy’s good at his job we should have him leading things” are the exact same people who can go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
You’re seriously arguing that cronyism is a self-correcting system?
Congratulations that’s… the worst take I’ve ever seen.
Could you please explain to me how you managed to get that from what I said?
In a ideal situation this sort of failsafe wouldn’t be needed - but your line is “The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power”. What if, just suppose, the people putting that person into power aren’t the proletariat? A totally wild hypothetical here I know, when would something like THAT ever happen. But those people, by your hypothetical would then be the ones with the power to go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
So when I say term limits aren’t necessary if the people have the power and therefore the same power putting someone into a role is the same power that can remove them, your response is “but what if people don’t have power”. If they don’t have power then they don’t have power. You didn’t address what I said.
What? But… you didn’t say that. That’s not what you said at all. That’s why I didn’t address it, because you didn’t say it. I addressed what you said.
Yes it is.