Libertarian Ideals Appealing - Feasible? --- Term Limits Are Both--- Congressional Control?

In some countries, the Post Office and the Telephone OCmpany are one and the same entity-I'm sure they profit off e-mail/internet. Who kenw the advent of the computer woudl eventually choke the Post Office-though we still need them. We still pay pretty low postage rates for something to be delivered anywhere in the country.....

Rogue trader-$2B? And they just noticed? Do you hear Ricky Ricardo saying, "You got some 'splaining to do, Loosee'? Heads will roll-lots of them....

Economy? I'm on the no pay, no COLA increase for 2 years. Bu tthat's O.K. because everything is gettingmore affordable each day, right?

Parties mean nothing-there are good people on both sides fo the fence, we just need to find them and stop accepting the lesser of two evils....

The libertarian party supports term limits but i have heard libertarians argue that the limits discriminate against those currently holding office in favor of newcomers. Certainly and interesting argument. How deep does your libertarian ideology run? I am undecided on this issue. The scholars in my mind are still debating.

I lean towards term limits and also support minimal statism. Yes a government that has a legislature, military, police and court system. I guess i add water to the purest to make it taste better.

Well, I speak here, now, as a Libertarian - and as a person who cherishes the Constitution.

Term limits would never have been necessary if the country was still run the way it was intended. The House with 2 year terms LITTLE OR NO PAY and part-time, to boot. The Senate 6 year terms for longevity and stability - Senior Statesmen elected BY THE STATES to serve at the discretion OF THE STATES.

The intention was the barber down the street would serve in the house for two years and then the store owner on the corner, then the teacher, the baker, etc. PART TIME. The House of Representatives was to be the place where the voices of the citizenry was heard, and the business of passing laws was SHARED.

It was the Senator who was intended to be a knowledgeable politician - the one who guided the Representatives and looked after the sovereignty of the States.

Then the House of Representatives voted themselves big salaries and rich benefits and decided it was a full time CAREER. And with the passage of the 17th Amendment, the US Legislative Branch is NOTHING like it was intended. Therefore I agree that we do need term limits (and we need to repeal the 17th Amendment)

Now to address your comment about the libertarian stand on small government to be unrealistic. Not so. Libertarians (by and large - we do disagree amongst ourselves just like any other party) believe that the role of the Federal government is finite. The powers specifically listed in the Constitution are not suggestions they are set in stone. Provide for the Common Defense - seems pretty clear cut to me. The Constitution specifically gives all undefined power to the States.

So IMO, the country will not fall apart if the Dept of Education is eliminated. Realistically, it would take a couple of people (and I do mean a couple) to take federal funds and cut 50 checks to 50 states. Done. Period. End of Story.

We make things far more complex than they were intended, and ridiculously more convoluted. If the Federal Government were to be cut by 75% then State governments would increase by nearly that amount to handle the new work on the State level. BUT - and this is the most important aspect of Libertarian government - decisions on a State level would be made IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WISHES OF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE. It's the big fish, little pond concept.

My vote means FAR more here in Pennsylvania than it does on a national level. Local and state government are more able to deal directly with the needs of their citizens and adjust more quickly to the wishes of their voters.

Now, a little long winded and you know I could go on forever. Hope this gave you some insight into why THIS Libertarian is supporting term limits (though it seems to fly in the face of "personal freedom")

Term limits are great and the benefits outweigh any drawbacks.

Election cycles and campaigning should be greatly limited and streamlined to reduce the need for money. Voting should have a receipt with a code and you can look up your selections at any time shortly after an election for verification.

One thing should be that no law should be allowed that targets any specific corporation or group. Laws should be applied evenly to everyone. We shouldnt need to have laws that apply only to certain races, sexes, interest groups, etc.

One area that needs to be addressed in my opinion is campaign financing. To be elected to a federal office takes millions of dollars (soon to top 1 billion for president). These funds cannot be obtained without trading favors for cash in the form of donations. They have staffs, organizations, media purchases, speaking engagements, dinners, fund raisers etc.... The GOP and the Democratic Party collects billions in total campaign financing. Once it was determined that the offices could be bought (enter modern media) the prices continue to climb. Since only money can elect (not ideology) then the only way to acquire these funds is to tow party lines; else you can forget party funding. No way can a principled person operate outside of party platforms anymore. These parties keep this power with money. But in turn they have to be beholden to special interests to obtain these funds. It would never happen but I would like to see some very radical reform concerning campaign contributions. Even as far providing a pool for viable canidates to collect from. A limited government fund that provides equally for all that meet certain criteria ( names collected or petitions signed for example). Eliminate campaign donations period. Even eliminate personal funding of campaigns ( to insure that being wealthy is a requirement). Once unfettered from courting special interests they can then run on ethics, ideology, and not have to be beholden to anyone but the people they represent. Our system is broken now.

Of course no way can this happen though. It would take an admendment to the constitution; and with the two parties fighting this it is not possible. So this is not really offering a solution; it is only pipe dream. At one time most sought public office out of sense of duty and the ability to right wrongs. Volunteers composed their staffs and operatives; not paid for spin masters and lawyers. Today the system is corrupt and no real way to correct itself. Both parties are bought and paid for; and any canidate needs to tow the party line to attain office in most cases.

good article owl

this libertarian supports term limits also....kjm said it best above

peace

A little piece of something I posted while in the greenhouse....

Granted there have been many calls for reform of the electoral system, signifying some awareness, if only intrinsically, of the electoral system as the source of our political problems. But the reforms called for are timid at best, and do little to get us closer to the defining idea of representative democracy. That citizens should choose the representative that speaks for them.

The question is, how do we get there? How do we get to a system where everybody who wants to participate, is represented by someone of their choice? Is such a thing possible?

Yes, it is.

Start with the number of seats you want to have on a representative council. Divide the population of the geographical area that the council administers, by the number of seats on the council. This gives you the number of supporters needed to control one seat on the council. Then allow coalition seats, where representatives who fall short of the necessary number of supporters, can join together to form a seat.

How this would work in its practicalities, is that on your eighteenth birthday, or whenever you decide to participate, you would go to the nearest elections office, and register your choice of representatives from those available. Say it’s a county level council, with seven seats. Of those seven seats, three are held outright by individuals, and four are coalition seats, with up to eight sub seats. You look among the registry or do other research to determine who speaks closest to your voice, or works the hardest on the issues you care about, and select them as your representative. Or, if you cannot find someone suitable, register to be a representative yourself, and go find supporters. The important difference to remember here, is that in this system, you are not voting for one or the other, or amongst a field, but that you are choosing.

Note that this system will work on any type of representative council, from city council, to the congress of the United States

I'm somewhat ambivalent about term limits. On the one hand, I can see the way in which the power of politicians becomes entrenched the longer they stay in any office, especially the same office. On the other, I think the voters should be able to choose who they want to elect, whether that is a first-time challenger or an incumbent of several terms. Also, I think there is some value to having people with experienced expertise in the nuances of policy.

What is needed more fundamentally is strict public financing of elections and elimination of lobbying, and I think those reforms would deal with most of the issues of corruption related to long-time incumbency.

Wouldn't term limits contradict libertarian philosophy.

I would vote for term limits. I think the founders wanted citizen legislators, not professional ones. And as I grow older I find myself to be more libertarian all the time.

I voted for Medical pot here in Colorado. I voted for full legalization last time, and will this time again. And I think that right now, we need a good dose of small government libertarianism.

End the drug war, end all three foreign wars. Bring back the troops from the 100+ countries that they are in. Make smart cuts in defense, by not being the world's police force anymore, make smart adjustments to entitlements, cut out the corporate welfare, sunset every regulation on the books, make congress go though them one by one for ones they want to continue.

And audit the Fed.

Sounds like Ron Paul to me.

1) campaign finance reform

- only individuals may donate, no more than minimum wage earns in a month

- campaigns may not start prior to 6 months before election day

- only campaigns may produce political ads during campaign season

2) referendums

3) recall powers

4) accountability

- 2/3 of collected governors can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate federal elected officials

Owlsview,

Something 'very' good has come out of our original discussion. I see many more thought-provoking comments.

I still don't see how control can be returned to the people with the duality of state and Federal Government with times of conflicting interests; often the Feds are involved with some of the minutest details preventing the freedoms of small businesses and local community goals. I realize the reason the Incorporation Doctrine was implemented was to prevent states from becoming too powerful, usurping individual rights; yet, in many ways, I think the group commonality and happiness 'should' override individual wants or desires. It depends on if they cause harm or not..as determined by the majority of the citizenry.. imo. If the individual is unhappy, then they should seek a Community that works for them; it should not be that the 'majority' has to give in to the whims of the individual.

Anyway, thank you for a very nice article and another opportunity to have a 'voice'.

I still struggle with term limits as it limits the freedoms of the electorate. While the electorate is tasked with holding representation accountable for abuse, they are free to ignore it too. Many of you support Ron Paul and term limits would have retired him long ago. When you finally find representation that holds the word of the constitution, why would you trade them for one that may not? Either way it is a gamble like our current system. I just don't know if i am comfortable removing the freedom to choose.

Although I'm not quite sure if I am a "libertarian" (different words have different meanings to individuals), I would indeed argue that the most important thing in American politics today should be liberty. That is what we are all about. The Founding Fathers were libertarian and, if you believe in what this country stands for (or at least what is used to stand for) than I think everyone has a little libertarianism in them. If they don't, they should. Sadly, the elites in this country want everyone to believe, and have largely succeeded in convincing the people, that it is all about right vs left. It's not about right vs left; It's about liberty vs tyranny. America has lost sight of this and it's time for us to reawaken that spirit of liberty that resides in us all!

***tagged for later consumption***

Now yer tappin on my table owlsview..."Congressional Term Limits"...eeeeeeeha, whatta concept!

Humor break:

An elderly man is stopped by the police around 1 a.m. and is asked where he is going at this time of night.

The man replies, "I am going to a lecture about alcohol abuse and the effects it has on the human body."

The officer then asks, "Really? Who is giving that lecture at this time of night?"

The man replies, "That would be my wife."

As much as we need to carefully choose the people who represent us, we must also come to an agreement on what we want them to do. Even before we can do this I feel it is imperative that we first put control of government back in the peoples hands.

Well said. First things first. Our legislators in Congress have lost touch with their constituency and the needs of this Nation. Congress has become a "tool" representing and serving the wants/needs/desires of big business and corporate interests that quite often has a negative impact on "We the People" and this nation. This is easy enough to see by the legislation that has been passed and who benefits by the tax laws, employment laws, bail-out legislation, import/export duties, and financial regulations that have been repealed or legislated, yet not enforced.

Our legislators are deep into the wallets of big business with their gratuitous gifts, "perks" and financial "contributions". The "I'll scratch yer back if you scratch mine" mentality permeates the political culture in Washington DC. It's the "grease" that buys favor and has become "normalized" and an "accepted" part of our political process and translated in the political world as an "experienced" politician.

The longer a career legislative politician remains in office, the more power and political influence they acquire. The more power and influence that a politician acquires, the opportunities to influence legislators with special interest money and lobbying increases. The longer a legislator is in office...the easier it becomes to justify and normalize the buying of influence as the "accepted and acceptable" way to conduct legislative business on the hill..."everybody's doing it".

To strengthen the system's ability to ward off corruption, term limits are now a necessity. They will not solve all of the corruption problems by no means. They will however be able to control how long the rotten oranges are allowed to fester and infect others.

Totally agree...!!! Congressional Term Limits need to be enacted for the same reasons we have term limits on our Presidency. To avoid the possibility or likelihood of acquiring too much power over time that would disrupt and skew the balance of power that is built into our Constitution and legislative branches of government. The "bad apples" can either be impeached, voted out of office or cycled out of office with term limits. This puts the political power back into the hands of "We the People". It circumvents the possibility that "he/she with the most campaign money" backing, gets the greatest public exposure, wins the election, maintaining their Congressional position for decades. Our current system and political process perpetuates the costly and ineffective, finger pointing and the adversarial "status quo" of our two party system.

Bringing government closer to the control of the people is in my opinion is critical. Term limits would guarantee a scenario where more seats would come open more often creating the need for more people to step up and participate more often at all levels.

I believe this to be true. "We the People" need to eliminate the "elitist" mentality that permeates the halls of Congress and the Capitol. We need to elect "qualified" individuals who are willing to responsibly take care the business of this nation in a manner that serves the needs of it's citizens. Once Congressional Term Limits are imposed...then "We the People" can begin to reform this nations campaign and election laws. Rather then allowing the two major parties to "groom" and present the electorate with their "picks" to choose from..."We the People" need to establish new criteria and qualifications to recruit from the populace...qualified candidates who are willing to do the work of the people and this nation, as opposed to candidates being "bribed" and influenced to doing the bidding of their party affiliation and/or corporations and big businesses deemed "too big to fail".

Returning control to the people is what I believe to be the most important task we face.

This is IMPERATIVE...!!! As things stand now...our Congressional "Representatives" do not represent or work in the best interest of the this nation OR it's citizens. Establishing Congressional Term Limits is the only way I can see to keep our legislative branch renewed, fresh and focused, returning control of the government back to "We the People" and keep it out of the pockets of big business.

Our political history makes it clear that this is NOT a "partisan" or political party issue...it's a human nature issue. Representatives on BOTH sides of the isle are equally susceptible and guilty of being drawn by greed and power into the corruption and influence of big money. This temptation has been self-evident since the dawn of time. As the first step in our political reform process...it is imperative that "We the People" institute Congressional Term Limits to minimize the window of opportunity to become corrupted or susceptible to corruption.

This constitutional amendment will NOT...EVER, come from Congress. Maintaining their power and control and the political status quo is their first priority. It does not serve their "personal self interests" to vote themselves out of a powerful, lucrative and cushy job. This will have to come from "We the People" in the form of a national constitutional amendment referendum, initiated, put on the ballot and ratified BY THE PEOPLE.

Congress alone has wasted and squandered BILLIONS of our tax-payer dollars, time and resources in squabbling, bickering, blocking, finger pointing and deflecting responsibility and accountability for ineffective and ill-conceived legislation...only to engage in and repeat the same unproductive behavior by gutting and/or undoing legislation that was passed whenever there is a shift in the Democratic/Republican power base. Responsibility and accountability are passed back and forth across the isle like a counterfeit $100 dollar bill and it becomes a convoluted and expensive "shell game" that leaves citizens scratching their heads in confusion. Mission Accomplished...!!!

Given the financial crisis we find ourselves in...this irresponsible behavior amounts to nothing less then THEFT from the American Taxpayers. It's a total waste of time, energy and money that could be better spent in more important ways that would benefit small business, create jobs, fund education, stimulate research and improve the lives of American citizens.

Now don't get me started on the power and cooperative manipulation of "We the People" exercised by the two parties engaged in their deflective "theatrics". After 3 pm, they are all jus drinking buddies at their respective and exclusive watering holes.

Holy @!$%# pope...thaa got long...sorry. OK Owl...ah'm done, ah said ma piece...breeeeeeeath in.....n'owwwwwwut.

Owl, I love this article and it is so well written. Thank you. I've seen other viners bring this subject up, but hesitated to post because something was missing in their point. You seem to have nailed it right on the head.

Here's my thought. the only possible reason for not supporting term limits is that people find change uncomfortable, and it takes a lot of effort and research to know who you would vote for. I find term limits refreshing, no time to become polluted by corruption. Also, anyone running for office would understand that their time is short, and what ever campaign promise they made would have to be accomplished in short order. (might actually get something done for once, instead of broken promises). That's just my humble opinion.