A quick look at the LP SCC's recommendations regarding local ballot measures shows that in most cases we recommend a NO vote. That shouldn't be too surprising, since most measures are put on the ballot by politicians who want to spend more money, and are seeking approval for issuing bonds, extending a tax, or adding a new tax. But we have recommended a YES vote on two city measures this year, both relating to term limits.

I've been asked why the Libertarian Party would endorse a measure that limits the right of voters to "elect who they want". Isn't that a fundamental political right, a basic principle of democracy?

First, I should mention that this is not something on which the LP has taken a universally-applicable position. There is no mention of it in our national Platform. And when it comes up for a vote, such as in these questions of ballot measure endorsements, there will typically be some disagreement among our members. And yet, when specific new or stricter term limits do come up for a vote, we have typically taken a position in favor, by a solid majority. (Note: Our local endorsement rules require a 2/3 majority vote to take a position, either in favor of or in opposition to, a ballot measure.)

Why? Isn't this a restriction on voting rights? And doesn't this mean that a Libertarian, having been elected to office and continuing to implement libertarian policies, might get "term limited out"? (And, yes, this has actually happened!)

To understand this apparent contradiction, we need to review a basic difference between individual rights and political rights. We all have the right to live our own lives as we choose. We have the right to spend our own money, to speak our mind, to worship or not worship a deity, to work for a willing employer, to sell to a willing buyer, to travel ... we have these rights as human beings because they are choices we make about our own lives.

Political rights are different, because they are about choices we are making for other people. When we vote, we are choosing somebody who will have some kind of power over everybody living in some geographic area. This is democracy, but it is not liberty, and for libertarians the latter is the more important principle.

There are some libertarians who don't consider political institutions legitimate at all. Others see government as having legitimate but strictly limited roles — and there are many variations of that. But we all share the view that there are limits — that the "will of the people" as expressed in an election should not be the overriding rule.

Our ancestors decided that nobody has the right to be king. But nobody has the "right" to be President, or a member of Congress, or the mayor of a city, either. These are just jobs that we, at considerable risk to our liberty, allow certain people to have because we haven't figured out a better way to get them done. And as part of that we have always put limits on who can be elected.

For almost every political office, voters are limited to choosing somebody who lives in that jurisdiction. For some offices, even that isn't enough — they must have lived there for a certain number of years. Under such rules, Charles III or Vladimir Putin can't be elected President of the United States, no matter how many citizens might want to vote for him — and almost everybody considers that a reasonable restriction. Offices typically also have an age requirement. That 16-year-old genius who has a PhD in economics can't be elected to Congress, even though she might have the most wonderful ideas for making this country great again.

We include elections and other democratic mechanisms in our overall political system because they have been found to be an improvement over earlier approaches — like hereditary monarchy — but democracy is still a dangerous business, and the people are rightly concerned about things getting out of hand. And that's why constitutional republics put limits on who can serve in office. Limiting the number of times or the number of years that a particular person can occupy a particular job is just one more precaution that we can take to reduce the danger.

When you vote, you are not exercising your fundamental right to live your own life your own way — you are deciding who will have power over other people's lives.

Nobody has the "right" to rule over other people — and so neither does anybody have the "right" to choose somebody else to rule over other people. We only put up with some degree of that in cases where we don't see a better alternative — and putting additional restrictions on who can rule is one useful tool we have for keeping democracy subservient to liberty.

Joe Dehn
County Chair