Ok, so here is my idle thought for the day.
Restrict the power of people at the average age of death in their country. Be a jerk about it, no political positions, no company directorships, trust boards or any other position of power can be held once you pass that age.
In NZ that is 83 for women and 79 for men.
That is old; really old, to be making decisions about the future.
If billionaires want to retain power beyond that, better fund those works that make things better for everybody to bring up that average. Men, you will need to up your game as women out live you by 4 years or 5%…
Perverse incentives, maybe keeping people alive using machines etc, longer than in medically advisable…but that doesn’t work on the scale of millions of people.
Edit: for clarity, I am not calling for disenfranchising the old, they would still have the right to vote.
I see where you are going with this. This is a shower thought; but also think, for a second, in the generous terms. What would be accomplished if the goal of the powerful was to extend the average lifespan, how would they do this to ensure the longest possible hold on power. I know the arguments against it. You are saying it is a slippery slope to totalitarianism, which maybe true.
Also; having no limits on power isn’t working out that well either.
I put the gender thing for giggles; but it may actually highlight that men often sacrifice their health to keep earning. Maybe they should take care of themselves more.
You are more than just a unit of economic activity; your family needs you, take care of yourself.
I definitely think it’s a slippery slope to totalitarianism and that’s kinda how I directed my hypothetical, but really I think it’s just undemocratic to have age limits. Not because it might lead to totalitarian racial, sexual, etc. discrimination, but because it’s just as wrong. There’s not a specific age at which the brain starts to decline. Maybe famously, fluid intelligence declines at some point but crystalized intelligence just increases over time (assuming normative brain function). Some people stay sharp until the day they die at age 100 and others get early dementia.
I have the same problem with age limits as I do with literacy tests and other forms of voter suppression. If you want people to elect good leaders, the most fair way to do it is to allow everybody to vote and then educate everybody so that they know who’s actually better. People shouldn’t vote for somebody whose age is impairing their ability. But age shouldn’t limit eligibility.
I do agree that incentivizing people to increase longevity is a good thing. And that men should take better care of their health. But yeah I think age limits are not the way to do it, though it’s of course an interesting thought experiment.
My idea is in no way advocating for disenfranchising the old. They get to vote in my hypothetical world.
They just can’t govern past 85ish, or lead companies etc… They need to pass that torch before they hit the average lifespan age. Most people who attain those offices are living well beyond the average age anyway; they get to live in the world they create and shape it only by voting like the rest of us.