get rid of corruption in high places

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Very astute. We had this debate in college about pre-med students one day. Do you want the very good surgeon who is in it only for the cash or the mediocre doctor who really cares about his patients?

I'm not sure the doctor who is in it only for the cash would be the "very good surgeon"....I hate either/or questions.....there are other options.

The very good technically surgeon.
Ever seen an employee who is enthusiastic but not very competent? Or an employee who is very, very good at what they do, but once they win the lottery, they are gone?

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Very astute. We had this debate in college about pre-med students one day. Do you want the very good surgeon who is in it only for the cash or the mediocre doctor who really cares about his patients?

I'm not sure the doctor who is in it only for the cash would be the "very good surgeon"....I hate either/or questions.....there are other options.

The very good technically surgeon.
Ever seen an employee who is enthusiastic but not very competent? Or an employee who is very, very good at what they do, but once they win the lottery, they are gone?

Fred, if there were only 2 surgeons available, and they exactly met your criteria, then you would be right. But reality is a little more complicated than that, same with your second example.

I'd rather have the doctor that's not going through a messy divorce.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Very astute. We had this debate in college about pre-med students one day. Do you want the very good surgeon who is in it only for the cash or the mediocre doctor who really cares about his patients?

I'm not sure the doctor who is in it only for the cash would be the "very good surgeon"....I hate either/or questions.....there are other options.

The very good technically surgeon.
Ever seen an employee who is enthusiastic but not very competent? Or an employee who is very, very good at what they do, but once they win the lottery, they are gone?

Fred, if there were only 2 surgeons available, and they exactly met your criteria, then you would be right. But reality is a little more complicated than that, same with your second example.

You can make choices like that all the time, the two checkers at your grocery, take the sullen guy who will get you out fast, the friendly cashier who will ask you about the grandkids and tell you about her non-smoking patch, or do the self check.

Or the dentist who talks about his new boat and does an excellent job on your teeth, but hands you the bill and tells your 50% of the charges won't be covered by your insurance.

And how exactly do your examples relate to term limits?

archer wrote: We need term limits, on everyone in an elected, or appointed, position.

We need limits on the number and power of our rulers. How many rulers does one smart person need, regardless of the limits of the terms?

A term limit on a crappy position that does not need to exist only assures high turnover in the unneeded crappy position.

Then you don't even elect 95% the people that decide your life for you, so what good is a term limit going to do on a building inspector or child services agent that is hired by someone who is hired by someone who is hired by someone who is hired by someone who you elected (but not really, you didn't know them and you were one of 1000's or 100,000's of votes that most say are not even counted right). These people can kick you to the curb and take you child and you are still 5-100 steps away from any influence over their selection and evaluation.

Term limits are like fixing a flat with touch up paint at this point. We are way past term limits as a possible solution. And people don't want term limits, or we would have voted them in by now, right, like all the other rules we agree on as the best way to run society. We got mandated purchases before more term limits, many here made sure of that, they prioritized it.

Plus, if the people elect someone again, say for the 20th time - they have not only elected them again, they have specifically spoken out against term limits. To not let them elect that person would be denying the will of the people. So even if we decide on term limits today, if we have an election tomorrow and they re-elect someone in, that would be an overturning of the term limits.

In other words, term limits are very undemocratic, by definition, they try to leverage the current will of the people against the future will of the people. Haven't we already done enough of that? Don't you want a third Obama term or if they people collectively wanted it, should they not get it?

The competent politicians who are working for you will be forced out and replaced by rookies who will take time to bring up to speed.

People claim to hate US Senators and Congressman, but tend to believe that theirs should keep his/her job. More retire than get voted out.

Plus we do have term limits locally here in Colorado so we lose competent and well-liked Sheriffs, DA's, and even coroners.

Yet we limited the terms for president.... Was that undemocratic OTN?

I think it was un democratic limiting the number of terms a President should serve. Stupid Republicans. Of course, seeing how quickly POTUS's age in office, it is probably smart for them to only run for the office twice.

archer wrote: Yet we limited the terms for president.... Was that undemocratic OTN?

Yeah, like I said the election itself will limit the term or not, we then get to decide on the start and end of every term. There is no need among people who decide collectively to have term limits, since we are in fact the deciders....unless one was to admit that the election system does not reflect the will of the people or in fact their will is not valid. I would argue that both of these are true. This is just academic. You don't decide most things for your life and the term limits would not change this. The system is broken and this sure as heck ain't the big issue.

The history of the 22nd amendment shows it was passed pretty quick and I bet those old enough to remember it did not have much say in it. Two states rejected it (MA and OK), 5 did not even vote on it and Colorado jumped on board in about one month. I doubt 30 days is enough time in 1947 let alone 2013, to know if the people were behind the decision. So we have an Amendment, like most laws, that is rushed passed the people in order to make sure that the people cannot decide things on their own in the future in the well established method of them speaking up, the vote. Yes, very undemocratic, quite republican, by definition.

There are also constant attempts to overturn this amendment - including those by Barny Frank and Harry Reid.

If you wanted to catch me, you should have proposed that power limits are undemocratic and that the people should have the ability to give up all their power, or most of it as they have....but then again, we rarely vote on powers, typically only people because we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. And since we are voting on people and they want power, usually, you are voting on who to give you your power to, who you are going to give your democratic rights to.

This is all academic, your life is decided by your neighbors, they don't give a crap about you, and it shows in our collective accomplishments. Let's keep restricting people until we have the perfect world, clearly our only fault is not restricting enough fast enough.

If the people wanted Obama for a third term or even simply wanted him on the ballot, how would you explain to them why he should not be an option - even if you disagree or agree with the way he ruled us?

If you are fearing royalty, it is far too late for that.