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”.
Yes what is? Repeating the same comment doesn’t make it suddenly say something different, and it still doesn’t address the part where it’s a safeguard for a non-ideal situation.
Even countries that have term limits don’t give all the power to whoever is in charge. If they did then that person could just declare there being no more term limits and themselves the god emperor or whatever to start abusing their power. It’s not like the thought to abuse power never crosses someone’s mind until after they’ve been in charge for 6 years so if we replace them before that happens we prevent people abusing power. They can’t do that because they can’t. There are already structures in place that prevent abusing power. Things like distributing power across multiple people and only being in charge of what’s necessary. Things like a constitution, things like a senate, having a process for laws to be reviewed and signed off before they can be put into effect.
Even countries that have term limits don’t give all the power to whoever is in charge.
Yes? Term limits are a tool for ensuring those structures, they’re not the only tool available nor are they the only one in use, and nobody is saying they are. I’m totally at a loss as to why you’re arguing against them when you’ve made such a good summary of what they are and have highlighted the importance of such structures within a government system.
Term limits aren’t necessary. We don’t have term limits for anything else. If someone is doing a good job doing whatever that means they should keep doing their job. The instant they stop doing their job that’s when you replace them. Not just replace them every few years because someone else might be able to do that job just as good.
Your entire argument hinges on it just not being necessary, but you’ve never provided a reason beyond “well what if they’re doing a good job”? You’ve a great case for why we do need a variety of structures to check one person obtaining too much power, but you’re arguing against term limits because “what if one person happens to be really good at their job?”
You’re not engaging with the answer here, which has been repeatedly given (arguably by marx) but I’ll happily reiterate it in more plain language: “no one person is so good at their job that they should be unwilling to step down from power”. Nobody is so unique that an equally competent person cannot be found - but many people are so corrupt that they will remain in power as long as possible unless there are hard checks to prevent them from doing so.
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.
Yes what is? Repeating the same comment doesn’t make it suddenly say something different, and it still doesn’t address the part where it’s a safeguard for a non-ideal situation.
Even countries that have term limits don’t give all the power to whoever is in charge. If they did then that person could just declare there being no more term limits and themselves the god emperor or whatever to start abusing their power. It’s not like the thought to abuse power never crosses someone’s mind until after they’ve been in charge for 6 years so if we replace them before that happens we prevent people abusing power. They can’t do that because they can’t. There are already structures in place that prevent abusing power. Things like distributing power across multiple people and only being in charge of what’s necessary. Things like a constitution, things like a senate, having a process for laws to be reviewed and signed off before they can be put into effect.
Yes? Term limits are a tool for ensuring those structures, they’re not the only tool available nor are they the only one in use, and nobody is saying they are. I’m totally at a loss as to why you’re arguing against them when you’ve made such a good summary of what they are and have highlighted the importance of such structures within a government system.
Term limits aren’t necessary. We don’t have term limits for anything else. If someone is doing a good job doing whatever that means they should keep doing their job. The instant they stop doing their job that’s when you replace them. Not just replace them every few years because someone else might be able to do that job just as good.
Putin approves of your message.
Your entire argument hinges on it just not being necessary, but you’ve never provided a reason beyond “well what if they’re doing a good job”? You’ve a great case for why we do need a variety of structures to check one person obtaining too much power, but you’re arguing against term limits because “what if one person happens to be really good at their job?”
You’re not engaging with the answer here, which has been repeatedly given (arguably by marx) but I’ll happily reiterate it in more plain language: “no one person is so good at their job that they should be unwilling to step down from power”. Nobody is so unique that an equally competent person cannot be found - but many people are so corrupt that they will remain in power as long as possible unless there are hard checks to prevent them from doing so.