Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If you’re old enough to retire and collect old person benefits you are no longer fit to lead not because you are might be incapable but because you are simply not generationally relevant. The office of president has term limits for effectively the same reason and nobody calls those insane.



Why are you not generationally relevant after a certain age? Would you say the same to Noam Chomsky, Leslie Lamport, and Donald Knuth?


We should not strive to be ruled by wise elders. I am not arguing that there is no place for respect or that old people can’t have great influence and utility. Just that they shouldn’t be on the field playing ball.


Even if someone could do fine, I'd prefer to skip out on them rather than let those who aren't fit through.


If there really such a wealth of honest, talented, dedicated people that you are ready to waste proven ones?


Yes


Term limits on the presidency have nothing to do with age. You could be 35, serve two terms, and you’d still be banned from being president again … at age 43.

The ND ban is nothing but ageism.


It’s not. Nobody is saying old people are subhuman scum who shouldn’t be treated kindly and with respect. The argument is that after a certain point you may not have a lived experience that is relevant anymore for being an effective political leader. The same way we wouldn’t put two 80 year olds in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft… the risk there is obvious and clear.




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: