Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

You should only do politics once you have done something in your life. At 14 you cant seriously claim any knowledge of anything about life, so the idea of ruling over others is extremely pretentious at an early age. Just like you would not be fit to manage a team of programmers at the same age.

View on HN

I wonder how many politicians only really have knowledge of politics, how many have an understanding of the Industries and Technologies they are regulating, and how many have any knowledge of what the reality of life is for their constituents.

I think the lack of knowledge among our government representatives is a far larger issue then one person a bit short on life experience.

There's a 24 year old woman who's a member of parliament in New Zealand: Chlöe Swarbrick [1]. One of the criticisms of her during the election was that she's young and literally just finished university.

I think that's the wrong way to look at it. We need more fresh faced optimism in politics, rather than a bunch of old cynics. Also, if politics is only for those who have done something in their life and attained some status, you're just filtering for old white men, which is largely what the US Congress, the UK Parliament, and many other western countries' governments are made of.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chl%C3%B6e_Swarbrick

We need more fresh faced optimism in politics, rather than a bunch of old cynics.

You remind me of when I was in my late 30s and being mistaken for someone much younger online by people who perceived me as *young naive go-getter."

I'm now 53. In some sense, I haven't changed much. :)

I doubt that anybody would even consider for a second making him the actual govenor, but going through the process of trying indicates that the kid has initiative and some understanding of how government works in his state.

Yet so many people do run a team of programmers at 18...? I’m not saying they’re necessarily successful, but...

>You should only do politics once you have done something in your life.

So a test to whom is allowed to be in government other than someone the voters choose? How is that different from me suggesting banning demographics from being allowed in government because I personally think they don't deserve it, despite what the voters actually say?

I say there should only be a single test for who can govern, that they are picked by the voters. If the voters pick a 14 year old over anyone else then someone saying they don't deserve the position because of some demographic they can't change is no different than saying a woman, someone poor, someone childless, or a Muslim doesn't deserve the position.

>> You should only do politics once you have done something in your life.

Ah, so basically the majority of our elected officials should be disqualified.

> the idea of ruling over others

The US political system isn't designed to "rule over" others. It's supposed to "represent" them.

Maybe he was talking about how it works in practice and not what is written on paper (assuming it is).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com