Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

If people of age 18-30 forms government only?

Lets take a scenario, what if young people forms govt b/w 18-30 age group than older people...
After 30 the person will resign or after his/her term last over.
People vote for them!
How would country/laws/govt would be?
Would there will be more peace? Would Ice cream be free on hectic monday's?
NO vegies in dinner? or taking a real life scenario...

There will hierarchy too like 30 would be the highest/eldest official person and 18 would be youngest...
ofc they would be completing their education, side by side after 18 if they want or maybe compulsorily, whatever...

What do you think world will look and function?

Lets take a scenario, what if young people forms govt b/w 18-30 age group than older people... After 30 the person will resign or after his/her term last over. People vote for them! How would country/laws/govt would be? Would there will be more peace? Would Ice cream be free on hectic monday's? NO vegies in dinner? or taking a real life scenario... There will hierarchy too like 30 would be the highest/eldest official person and 18 would be youngest... ofc they would be completing their education, side by side after 18 if they want or maybe compulsorily, whatever... What do you think world will look and function?

7872.jpg

![7872.jpg](https://image.lichess1.org/display?op=noop&path=n4vjz6DKj55a.jpg&sig=de891bb139b341ab9cf9490c7b71dd47e285890e)

@JASKIRATSINGH said ^

Lets take a scenario, what if young people forms govt b/w 18-30 age group than older people...
After 30 the person will resign or after his/her term last over.
People vote for them!
How would country/laws/govt would be?
Would there will be more peace? Would Ice cream be free on hectic monday's?
NO vegies in dinner? or taking a real life scenario...

There will hierarchy too like 30 would be the highest/eldest official person and 18 would be youngest...
ofc they would be completing their education, side by side after 18 if they want or maybe compulsorily, whatever...

What do you think world will look and function?

Almost everyone under 30 isn't ready for any kind of leadership role, much less government. For example, even in my profession, it's generally accepted that if someone is among the very best among their peers (requiring a higher education, and a strong career track record), then by age 30, they'll be a fully-fledged specialist. And until 25, almost everyone in my profession is considered nothing more than a blank slate, poised to become a fully-fledged specialist someday. And until 25, almost everyone in my profession works as subordinates (they have bosses), following orders from their superiors, performing relatively low-skilled work, but they have to do a lot of it quickly. And in between, they have to carry out various assignments from their superiors, like: print out and bring me these documents, take that set of documents to such-and-such a place, and hand them over to so-and-so, saying this. Even the most qualified among their peers. Who, by around age 30, will finally become bosses over a small group of 23-27 year-olds. A typical scenario is this: a person is 27, has a relevant higher education (in the same profession), has five years of work experience, has been working hard—and is just a subordinate. They have no subordinates. And above them is their boss. And above that boss is one or more levels of bosses. And if this person has had a really good career, then at around age 30, they finally become a boss at the lowest level. There are still one or more levels of bosses above them. But they finally have two or three subordinates. This is in your peak 30s. Only for the very smart. For the unskilled, it will be much, much later, or never at all. They will spend their entire lives working as subordinates. And you're talking about governing the state with these people who were essentially just children yesterday...

@JASKIRATSINGH said [^](/forum/redirect/post/pYEsjfnc) > Lets take a scenario, what if young people forms govt b/w 18-30 age group than older people... > After 30 the person will resign or after his/her term last over. > People vote for them! > How would country/laws/govt would be? > Would there will be more peace? Would Ice cream be free on hectic monday's? > NO vegies in dinner? or taking a real life scenario... > > There will hierarchy too like 30 would be the highest/eldest official person and 18 would be youngest... > ofc they would be completing their education, side by side after 18 if they want or maybe compulsorily, whatever... > > What do you think world will look and function? Almost everyone under 30 isn't ready for any kind of leadership role, much less government. For example, even in my profession, it's generally accepted that if someone is among the very best among their peers (requiring a higher education, and a strong career track record), then by age 30, they'll be a fully-fledged specialist. And until 25, almost everyone in my profession is considered nothing more than a blank slate, poised to become a fully-fledged specialist someday. And until 25, almost everyone in my profession works as subordinates (they have bosses), following orders from their superiors, performing relatively low-skilled work, but they have to do a lot of it quickly. And in between, they have to carry out various assignments from their superiors, like: print out and bring me these documents, take that set of documents to such-and-such a place, and hand them over to so-and-so, saying this. Even the most qualified among their peers. Who, by around age 30, will finally become bosses over a small group of 23-27 year-olds. A typical scenario is this: a person is 27, has a relevant higher education (in the same profession), has five years of work experience, has been working hard—and is just a subordinate. They have no subordinates. And above them is their boss. And above that boss is one or more levels of bosses. And if this person has had a really good career, then at around age 30, they finally become a boss at the lowest level. There are still one or more levels of bosses above them. But they finally have two or three subordinates. This is in your peak 30s. Only for the very smart. For the unskilled, it will be much, much later, or never at all. They will spend their entire lives working as subordinates. And you're talking about governing the state with these people who were essentially just children yesterday...

Nah bro if I were them I'd still be studying lol I can't exactly run the government while in college can I?

Nah bro if I were them I'd still be studying lol I can't exactly run the government while in college can I?

I'm pretty sure I saw this movie (circa 1970).

I'm pretty sure I saw this movie (circa 1970).

I think 18 is much too young to run a government, but then again literal babies would do a better job then our current one.

I think 18 is much too young to run a government, but then again literal babies would do a better job then our current one.

Young people have accomplished great things - often when they were raised to do so from a very early age. There have been numerous successful children kings who took charge at an early age and delivered strong results.

Here's a few examples borrowed from a reddit thread on this topic:

Kangxi Emperor (China): Became emperor at 7, took direct control at 13, and brought the Qing dynasty into a period of great prosperity, stability, and territorial expansion.

Akbar the Great (Mughal Empire): Inherited the throne at 13 and, after a brief regency, became one of India's most powerful rulers, noted for his administrative reforms and religious tolerance.

Louis XIV (France): Crowned at age four and later became the "Sun King," centralizing power and defining the era of absolute monarchy.

Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: Ascended at 13, managed to lead military campaigns and defeat Saladin while battling leprosy.

Edward III (England): Took power at 17 after overthrowing his mother’s regent, initiating the Hundred Years' War and expanding English power.

James VI of Scotland: Crowned at 13 months, he successfully stabilized Scotland and inherited the English throne

While many of these people had good council and regents - they often exhibited direct authority from a very early age.

Young people have accomplished great things - often when they were raised to do so from a very early age. There have been numerous successful children kings who took charge at an early age and delivered strong results. Here's a few examples borrowed from a reddit thread on this topic: Kangxi Emperor (China): Became emperor at 7, took direct control at 13, and brought the Qing dynasty into a period of great prosperity, stability, and territorial expansion. Akbar the Great (Mughal Empire): Inherited the throne at 13 and, after a brief regency, became one of India's most powerful rulers, noted for his administrative reforms and religious tolerance. Louis XIV (France): Crowned at age four and later became the "Sun King," centralizing power and defining the era of absolute monarchy. Baldwin IV of Jerusalem: Ascended at 13, managed to lead military campaigns and defeat Saladin while battling leprosy. Edward III (England): Took power at 17 after overthrowing his mother’s regent, initiating the Hundred Years' War and expanding English power. James VI of Scotland: Crowned at 13 months, he successfully stabilized Scotland and inherited the English throne While many of these people had good council and regents - they often exhibited direct authority from a very early age.

"I think 18 is much too young to run a government, but then again literal babies would do a better job then our current one." writes @AsDaGo , a poster whose contributions I tend to read dependably.

But don't despair. It's possible, for example, that California might soon be electing some highly intelligent, objective adults.

I'm not going to bet that they do. But it's become possible!

Of course, California might not be the jurisdiction that @AsDaGo had in mind.

The problem with success is that it can lead people (as, perhaps, some in California) not to realize that success is precarious, and that hard work can't safely be replaced with complacency and party time. "Party time" being a deeper term than it might at first appear.

Read Gibbon. Learn from history. And remember that even those with the best of intentions can make prolonged mistakes.

Look for results, and follow the money. Be wary of excuses.

I should crochet that on something. But I lack the dexterity and patience to crochet.

@Inventor_1 is clearly a very bright person, who I suspect has more than the usual life experience. One of the joys of the Lichess forum is the opportunity to hear the opinions of people who are relatively scarce in real life. Even if some of them disagree with me from time to time, or even most of the time.

I hope all readers will take the time to genuinely consider the arguments of others - and not just leap to find a quick joke, insult or counterargument. As too often happens in politics.

By the way, @Skittle-Head and @MrPushwood , remind me not to get into a trivia contest with either of you. Well played.

"I think 18 is much too young to run a government, but then again literal babies would do a better job then our current one." writes @AsDaGo , a poster whose contributions I tend to read dependably. But don't despair. It's possible, for example, that California might soon be electing some highly intelligent, objective adults. I'm not going to bet that they do. But it's become possible! Of course, California might not be the jurisdiction that @AsDaGo had in mind. The problem with success is that it can lead people (as, perhaps, some in California) not to realize that success is precarious, and that hard work can't safely be replaced with complacency and party time. "Party time" being a deeper term than it might at first appear. Read Gibbon. Learn from history. And remember that even those with the best of intentions can make prolonged mistakes. Look for results, and follow the money. Be wary of excuses. I should crochet that on something. But I lack the dexterity and patience to crochet. @Inventor_1 is clearly a very bright person, who I suspect has more than the usual life experience. One of the joys of the Lichess forum is the opportunity to hear the opinions of people who are relatively scarce in real life. Even if some of them disagree with me from time to time, or even most of the time. I hope all readers will take the time to genuinely consider the arguments of others - and not just leap to find a quick joke, insult or counterargument. As too often happens in politics. By the way, @Skittle-Head and @MrPushwood , remind me not to get into a trivia contest with either of you. Well played.

@Noflaps said ^

@Inventor_1 is clearly a very bright person, who I suspect has more than the usual life experience. One of the joys of the Lichess forum is the opportunity to hear the opinions of people who are relatively scarce in real life.

Thank you! I'm so glad! And I completely agree with everything you said in that sentence! ))))) And I've had (for a long time now) the highest opinion of you! I've had this opinion of you for a long time: that you're smart, or (more likely) very smart, very positive, very intelligent, very good at arguing your correct thoughts, very well versed in what's good and what's bad in the world, and generally a very good person!

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/V2lAn1s4) > @Inventor_1 is clearly a very bright person, who I suspect has more than the usual life experience. One of the joys of the Lichess forum is the opportunity to hear the opinions of people who are relatively scarce in real life. Thank you! I'm so glad! And I completely agree with everything you said in that sentence! ))))) And I've had (for a long time now) the highest opinion of you! I've had this opinion of you for a long time: that you're smart, or (more likely) very smart, very positive, very intelligent, very good at arguing your correct thoughts, very well versed in what's good and what's bad in the world, and generally a very good person!