4 ms·

Term limits definitely come with very real tradeoffs. I'd argue, though, that if the machine is that corrupt it doesn't matter what we do with politicians. Wha

Term limits definitely come with very real tradeoffs. I'd argue, though, that if the machine is that corrupt it doesn't matter what we do with politicians. What you're describing sounds to me like the politicians are inconsequential puppets and the machine must be limited or removed. I could a tuallg get behind that idea, it wouldn't take much to convince me that term limits don't go after the real problem.

krapp 3y ago
Maybe we should consider a less violent version of what Thomas Jefferson wanted and just replace the entire government, top to bottom, every 20 years. On top of any other term limits or whatever - just periodically reset everything for the current generation. Maybe that would even include a Constitutional convention. I've long been of the opinion that we should be updating the Constitution more often, and more easily. It isn't intended to be frozen in amber.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I'm definitely a fan of the general sentiment. Exactly how that is done to keep enough stability to avoid constant churn would be a really interesting debate, but I've long thought that laws should be required to come with expiration dates that have to be renewed. Personally, I'd also be so interested to see what the political response would be today if a group of well known and respected individuals scheduled a constitutional convention to honestly hold such discussions. It's exactly what we did to being the process of breaking away from the king, I wonder if they would get shut down somehow?
bombcar 3y ago
My general lean is toward subsidiarity - decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. This is somewhat inefficient but it also minimizes major problems.
- flagrant_taco 3y ago
  I'd argue that gridlock is a feature not a bug. Hamilton even said as much in the Federalist papers when acknowledging that the model of a three-branch government can be slow and inefficient compared to a one or two branch model. I think this gets a bit further down the road than my original goal of a quick solution that could be implemented now for some benefit, but yeah I'd love to see power pushed as far down the hierarchy as possible.

krapp 3y ago

Maybe we should consider a less violent version of what Thomas Jefferson wanted and just replace the entire government, top to bottom, every 20 years. On top of any other term limits or whatever - just periodically reset everything for the current generation. Maybe that would even include a Constitutional convention. I've long been of the opinion that we should be updating the Constitution more often, and more easily. It isn't intended to be frozen in amber.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
I'm definitely a fan of the general sentiment. Exactly how that is done to keep enough stability to avoid constant churn would be a really interesting debate, but I've long thought that laws should be required to come with expiration dates that have to be renewed. Personally, I'd also be so interested to see what the political response would be today if a group of well known and respected individuals scheduled a constitutional convention to honestly hold such discussions. It's exactly what we did to being the process of breaking away from the king, I wonder if they would get shut down somehow?

bombcar 3y ago

My general lean is toward subsidiarity - decisions should be made at the lowest possible level. This is somewhat inefficient but it also minimizes major problems.

flagrant_taco 3y ago
I'd argue that gridlock is a feature not a bug. Hamilton even said as much in the Federalist papers when acknowledging that the model of a three-branch government can be slow and inefficient compared to a one or two branch model. I think this gets a bit further down the road than my original goal of a quick solution that could be implemented now for some benefit, but yeah I'd love to see power pushed as far down the hierarchy as possible.