From: sharvy@reed.edu (V Headshape)
Newsgroups: or.politics
Subject: Re: the election
Date: 9 Nov 92 06:40:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Nov9.064006.26904
Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon

In article <1992Nov7.220615.16119@klic.rain.com> keithl@klic.rain.com (Keith Lofstrom) writes:

>The reason we voted for term limits, my cynical friend, was because an
>incumbent finds it frighteningly easy to peddle enough favors to get
>all the money he needs to get re-elected.  People vote for who they hear
>about, and who they hear about depends on the money available to promote
>them.  As a libertarian, whose candidate DIDN'T have a lot of money this
>time around, I got awfully tired of hearing about "the 3 candidates" 
>from the media.  What "the 3 candidates" means is those candidates who
>command enough billions of dollars to get the media's attention.  Term 
>limits is one way to restrict the money flow a bit.
>
>The major parties will still peddle influence, but some will get lost in
>the handoff from the trained crooks to the untrained ones.  A marginal
>gain for those of us who would like to get the government out of our faces,
>even if it does cost our regions some pork for a few years.

Term-limits are flatly antithetical to Libertarian principles.

Term-limits do not get government out of your face, they get
government in your face. The government may now prevent me from
voting for the person I want most to represent me. Thanks a lot. 
What the hell kind of liberty is that? It's just a law that limits
the choices I can make. Suppose the measure had been expressed like so:

The people shall be prohibited from electing to office anyone who has
held that office for two terms...

Would it have recieved as many votes? It is, in every regard except
wording, the equivalent of what passed. Doesn't sound quite as righteous
though, does it? It lacks that rah-rah "ooh, get those dirt-bag
politicians" mentality that excites the moron majority, and that helps
them make up their minds on these tricky issues.

What prevents the media from paying much attention to the Libertarians
isn't lack of Libertarian green; it's the common perception among the
public that Libertarian ideas are whacko: abolishing public schools,
legalizing drugs, etc. (now we can add "abolishing term-limits" to
that list). We true Libertarians know that all these ideas are ethical
and practical, of course, but they are radical and, therefore,
instantly rejected by most.

In any case, if the people do vote herd-like for whichever "product"
spends the most money on commercials/air-time, it is their right to do
so. The People are free, right? If 70% of the people don't want to
elect anyone to two terms of anything, then they can just vote that
way, and they will realize their wish. If, of those 70%, 50% are too
enslaved by television to act like adults with a brain, then their
freedom is waste; mine is not however -- it is still
my right, and to take it away by placing limits on who I can vote for
is wrong. I have the right to vote for the person who best
represents my values, goddamnit.
-- 
Liberate the Weirdoes and You Liberate the Squares
Newsgroups: or.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.elections,ba.politics,co.politics,ne.politics,nj.politics,ny.politics,talk.politics.misc