Term Limits

As the next election looms closer, we should consider whether or not term limits should be imposed. Since our country was founded, there have been two fundamental schools of thought regarding presidential term limits. The first is that it is important to limit terms and years in office in order to ensure that the United States does not stagnate under the leadership of one person, and that the one person does not accumulate too much power over the people. The second is that, should one person prove to be an exceptional leader, that person should be allowed to continue leading the country for so long as the people want.

For many years, there was no set limits to how long a president could serve. Washington did set a precedence, however, when he declined to run a third term. That precedence remained intact until Franklin D. Roosevelt won a third term election in 1940, and a fourth in 1944. When Roosevelt died during his fourth term in office, a new amendment limiting the number of terms and years in office that each president was allowed was introduced in congress. The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951, and imposed a two-term, ten-year limitation on future presidents. However, with each election comes the possibility that the majority of the people will want the 22nd Amendment to be repealed. (http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-22-presidential-term-limits)

I admit I have been torn on this issue. Personally, I am relieved that Obama is nearing the end of his reign. While I was ecstatic during the 2008 election at the prospect of the glass ceiling being forever broken (either by the first African-American president or the first female vice-president), my consolation after the 2012 election was that it was the last term Obama could serve. I have not been a fan of his particular administration. That being said, what if I truly like the next president? What if I think that person is just downright groovy and do not think that there will ever be a better president? Won’t I want that person to stay in office?

One fear I have of repealing term/year limits is that voters might get lazy or wary and simply vote for the devil they know. Isn’t that already somewhat of a problem? I also shudder to think of the resources and power that presidents may accumulate past two terms. It may not be an altogether accurate perception, but I start to imagine a pope-like personage whose authority goes unquestioned. And what would happen to the government in general should one person be allowed to lead indefinitely? Of course there would always be the possibility of impeachment or simply voting someone else into office, but like I said, people often vote for the devil they know.

All in all, I am against term limits. While one person may be a fantastic leader, there will always be others who could do as good or better. Upheaval is what our country was founded on, and upheaval is what keeps it invigorated.

All work by Pacific Northwest Libertarian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at pnwlibertarian.wordpress.com.

Limited Government vs. Anarchy

People often equate Libertarianism with anarchy. According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online American English, anarchy is defined as “a lack of organization and control in a society or group, [especially] because either there is no government or it has no power.” The Libertarian Party does not advocate anarchy; it advocates limited government. Limiting the federal government does not mean that society will be without any kind of structure, organization or support (i.e. anarchy). It means that society will be free to structure, organize and support itself in the absence of coercion. Think more ‘Founding Fathers’ and less ‘Big Brother’. Furthermore, equating limited government with anarchy implies that people are automatically helpless and/or criminal without a giant federal bureaucracy to control their lives for them. I, for one, do not believe this to be true.

David Boaz summarized the Libertarian view of limited government in a post for the Cato Institute: “A government is a set of institutions through which we adjudicate our disputes, defend our rights, and provide for certain common needs. It derives its authority, at some level and in some way, from the consent of the governed. Libertarians want people to be able to live peacefully together in civil society. Cooperation is better than coercion. Peaceful coexistence and voluntary cooperation require an institution to protect us from outside threats, deter or punish criminals, and settle the disputes that will inevitably arise among neighbors—a government, in short. Thus, to criticize a wide range of the activities undertaken by federal and state governments—from Social Security to drug prohibition to out-of-control taxation—is not to be “anti-government.” It is simply to insist that what we want is a limited government that attends to its necessary and proper functions” (Mr. Boaz’s original post can be found at http://www.cato.org/blog/are-libertarians-anti-government and is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/deed.en_US)

 

All work by Pacific Northwest Libertarian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at pnwlibertarian.wordpress.com.

Penn Jillette Discusses Libertarianism

In this short video courtesy of Libertarianism.org, Penn Jillette offers an insightful discourse on why he is a Libertarian.

A couple of things really stood out to me as I watched.

First, Mr. Jillette points out why he does not try to sell people on Libertarianism. I wholeheartedly concur, and I humbly apologize for ever having tried to sell any ideal to anyone. Second, he poses a brilliant question that can be applied to any situation. I believe that this question neatly sums up the Libertarian party.

For those of us who appreciate disclaimers: I am not an atheist at present. However, I uphold Mr. Jillette’s right to be an atheist and to freely talk about atheism in public media.

All work by Pacific Northwest Libertarian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at pnwlibertarian.wordpress.com.

Lesser Of The Evils (and why I voted Libertarian)

The Lesser of the Evils principal as applied to elections is voting for a guy you don’t like because you dislike the other guy even more. However, you want to vote for a guy who has a decent chance of actually getting elected. Historically, this means voting either Democrat or Republican regardless of your personal ideals.

After years of voting according to the Lesser of the Evils principal, I decided that my vote should represent my ideals. I voted Libertarian across the board on the 2014 General Elections. It is unfortunate that I did not think that my chosen candidates stood a chance in hell of actually getting elected – and they didn’t. But I feel better having taken a stand for what I believe in and using my vote to voice my opinion. I have also officially updated my voter registration to reflect my Libertarian affiliation.

I can understand why people choose the Lesser of the Evils principal. It can be disheartening to vote Libertarian when the major parties have such a stranglehold on elections. Voting Libertarian can feel like your political voice isn’t heard because Libertarian candidates are simply not elected as often as major party candidates.

However, it does stand to reason that if everyone who hold Libertarian ideals voted Libertarian, the Libertarian party would dissolve the major party stranglehold.

To that end, this blog is dedicated to further the cause of Libertarianism by sharing knowledge, opinions and ideals regarding American politics in general, and the Libertarian party in particular. Forthcoming posts will include information, resources and links regarding the Libertarian party.

Welcome!

 

All work by Pacific Northwest Libertarian is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at pnwlibertarian.wordpress.com.