Politicians Are Out of Touch: Here's how we fix that

[@logan9042]

What about the bureaucracy? Where is the term limits for them?

[@diggman88]

Accurate, bureaucracy is one of the core problems. The bureaus don't make laws, They make "regulations" They're not answerable to most members of government.

[@maxwellfelix]

Not arguing against the idea but this could have the unintended consequence that more power will move into the hands of bureaucrats who have been around longer than the politicians.

[@freesk8]

Government should be MUCH smaller than it is.

[@prolarka]

Ranked choice voting would help for newcomers to break-in. Would also save the otherwise lost votes.

[@meritholdingllc123]

You had to bring in race and sex, mention NY finally had a woman governor, but didn't mention she's one of the most tyrannical politicians alive today. So, do you want equity or liberty?

[@homewall744]

We need government "service" limits, 10 year max for all government workers across all of their jobs.

[@Junji101]

This might work for elected positions, but not for jobs like post office workers.

[@JanBruunAndersen]

No, we need you to stop telling other people which job I can hold for how long.

[@mtnhowie]

@@JanBruunAndersen Then government workers have to stop supporting one political side over another and serve the elected government with neutrality. End the Deep State.

[@P.rivate]

​@@Junji101There should be a limit for how long someone can occupy a job in the government. Like 4 years or something, the same as the President.

[@P.rivate]

​@@JanBruunAndersenNo one wants government officials anymore. Deal with it. Taxes are theft and the government is a mafia.

[@blurglide]

We need a constitutional convention to make this happen, plus a balanced budget. A good compromise might be that a federal politician is ineligible for reelection next term if they vote to pass an unbalanced budget. This way they could fall on their swords in a true emergency. I'd also like to have all bills passed 10 pages at a time, which must be read aloud in congress before coming up for a vote, and you must be present at the reading to vote. These two changes would eliminate a LOT of pork and corruption.

[@freedomwriter1995]

Of course term limits can help keep politicians in touch with their constituents. That's why they'll never let it succeed.

[@homewall744]

Why? Re-election is easy and they have no need to service anybody since they'll just hold their job for the limited term and be forced out.

[@rsimpson69]

I think it just means we'll be ignored by a longer list of names.

[@mtnhowie]

Instead of being concerned about the sex and race of elected officials, we should be concerned more about their ability and qualifications. DEI hires are destructive, to the person shoehorned into a position they are unqualified for and the people they are meant to serve. Identity-blind merit based hiring only.

[@davedove67]

I think for the federal level there should be an overall limit. I call it the "Get Out of DC and Get a Real Job Amendment." No one can serve in any elected or appointed position, or combination of such positions, for more than a combined total of 20 years.

[@stephenshelton4267]

Aren't term limits simply a bandaid to a gullible and disengaged public that far too often votes based on name recognition? I do think term limits are a good idea, but I wonder what the unforeseen consequences would be, like would this discourage people from voting smart even further?

[@stephenshelton4267]

I sometimes think that in exchange for term limits we should extend term durations, i.e. president could have 6 year terms instead of 4, congressmen in the House should have terms of 3 or 4 years, and Congressmen in the Senate could probably get by with 6 year terms, but 2 more years of Biden seems frightening.

[@homewall744]

It's just trying to use force to limit choice because we have found that choice by voting for rulers doesn't work and we hope this will fix the core problem, which is government does way too much, way beyond the common good and way too much for special interests of all sorts, and so much goes to war and limiting competition.

[@HamidSadeghi.]

please make a video about those 4 items that you mentioned in video . ranked-choice voting and ....

[@GregoryTheGr8ster]

I loved seeing the young Nancy Pelosi. She was such a beauty! She even looked like Shelly Long in those days.

[@freesk8]

Term Limits Now.

[@johnkubek4246]

Congressmen think that only the Grim Reaper should impose term limits. Career politicians do not serve, they are politicians not statesmen.

[@TreDogOfficial]

I wish you would do a video on ranked choice voting. I'm interested in any voting style that promotes Libertarian values. But if it incentivizes socialism, I'm not a fan of democracy. For socialism is stealing

[@xtreme242]

RCV engenders to the broad spectrum of the electorate rather than the fringes. So no, socialism would most likely not be an issue

[@homewall744]

Improve our clear rights before you let people vote to take control us, take our money and decide whether we can work or not, etc.

[@PossumsTophat]

This is a gross oversimplification of the issue. If term limits are imposed the parties will just start grooming systems and will treat the positions like a relay race passing the batton to the next anointed one. We already see this with consideration to how often vice presidents get elected after the president has exhausted their term limit. You have to limit power, not limit who wields it!

[@bbbshot]

With term limits, can the lobbying firms support the flood of ex politicians looking for work?

[@igweogba6774]

Term limits in Africa means "my time here is short, let me steal as much as I can"

[@woodchuck003]

Why is there a focus on identity politics in this video? Hoping that politicians of a certain gender in a certain skin color get elected is probably the dumbest reason to support term limits. Is this an actual libertarian organization or is it controlled opposition?

[@Montfortracing]

I'm guessing you agree with everything else in this video, right? If so, the fact you have a problem with them bringing up race and sex shows there's more a problem with you! Lighten up, man! The reason they brought up was to show that in the past, politicians clung on to power and that deterred women and blacks to become politicians. The whole point of the video was to show there are systemic ways to vote out career politicians. Too many of us are too complacent and would rather sit around in our comfy suburban homes sipping iced tea. Then we complain about identity politics. Well, we can do something. One way is to change voting systems. I for one favor approval voting.

[@woodchuck003]

@@Montfortracing so you are arguing you want do you want to vote out career politicians buy utilizing candidates whose key characteristics is being female or black? You don't want to vote on them based on policy? What if the candidate you support 100% agrees with the person you want to replace? We want better policies, we don't want to utilize racism or sexism in a misplaced moral grandstand.

[@Montfortracing]

@@woodchuck003 no dude, that's not what I'm saying! Reread my comment, then come back with a better question. Good lord... And I plan to vote American Solidarity Party cuz their platform matches closer to what I believe and policies I'd implement. Just thought I'd let you know before you judge me for voting based on frivolous reasons.

[@woodchuck003]

@@Montfortracing having looked st the your parties platform it look like you are a Christian who is comfortable with a certain amount of socialism, you are in favor of identity politics (racism) and appear to fall for the racist criminal justice grift. I will say zoning laws do suck but a party calling itself solidarity gives me the impression that this party thinks too favorable about Marx. So you are correct i was wrong to think you are in favor of racism. I now think you are in favor of communism and racism.

[@Montfortracing]

@@woodchuck003 your comment shows just how ignorant and narrow-minded most Americans are when it comes to politics. American Solidarity Party is a Christian Democracy party. Its foundations are in Catholic social teaching, however Christian Democracy also tries to infuse a bit of natural law in its philosophy. If you know anything about Catholic social teaching, the Church vehemently opposes communism and socialism, and thus the ASP also opposes communism and socialism. But one thing I do know about libertarians and conservatives and anyone who subscribes to any anti-government nonsensical rhetoric is that for them, ANY government action is seen as socialism, even though that particular government action doesn't always involve state ownership of wealth, capital, goods and services. It's quite appalling this thinking cuz it really doesn't have a good basis for its anti-government philosophy without it just saying "I hate government." That's not much of a political philosophy at all, that's called stupidity. I'm not saying left-liberals are any better, they tend to be too obsessed with government action. But to be so dogmatically opposed to government just leads to no progress in conversations and thus leads to no real good solutions. Every problem in the US cannot be solved by just purely shrinking gov't! Until anti-government people develop a firmer foundation beyond American constitutionalism and English common law, we'll never get anywhere with solving our country's problems.

[@dionwall5519]

Term limits are nice, but they make bureaucrats more powerful.

[@Knightmessenger]

6:12 how do you spend all this time on term limits and barely touch ranked choice voting? The easiest way to make it harder for politicians to stay in office forever is to give voters more options to choose from.

[@ArthurCSchaperMR]

Term limits will not help, even Ron Paul doesn't support this proposal anymore.

[@damianwilson391]

Term limits are not the answer, there are no problems with a leader having infinite terms. I believe the biggest problem that term limits is trying to solve is simply corruption. Corruption does not end when a person leaves office, and differently experienced politicians fighting over the policies that effects us all is the greatest diversity that a society needs to thrive

[@freedomwatch3991]

This is a bad idea. It will make politics even more unstable and extremely short-sighted. Even if you want term limits, it’s better to have a single term but a longer term, so that officials are less focused on campaigning and more focused on policy and governance. In any case, I think it’s still advantageous to have some elements within government to be hereditary.

[@OneEyedOneHornedGian]

I wonder if states could implement term limits for their national congressmen. Would this limit the states impact on national elections?

[@yuriyanu2694]

Wouldn't this give the good statesmen (if there are any) the boot? Doesn't this run contrary to Hoppe's analysis (that eventually leads to a relatively positive view of monarchy)? Won't the politician have a greater incentive to extract the most they can out of their position within the, now shorter, limit?

[@rsimpson69]

So the same small crew will have to shuffle jobs. Or, we believe the supply of would-be parasites is so limited that term limits or even service limits could exhaust the potential supply of corrupt candidates? When both Democrats and Republicans agree, what they want will probably screw us. Using Trump as part of an example of something to be remedied by term limits, as in the total age of Presidential choices, is curious. That job already has term limits.

[@albertorios1799]

I'm sorry but term limits do absolutely nothing when those "in power" continue to violate the oath they swear. What good is a Constitution, if the very people it was written to limit can define their own powers.

[@JacobNeff-oq5km]

Term limits would do nothing but make the parties more powerful and turn public office into a revolving door for specially groomed candidates. The problem is and has always been the unregulated electorate.

[@xtreme242]

We have term limits. Theyre called elections

[@bradwatson7324]

I'd rather have legal peaceful secession amended to the Bill of Rights instead.

[@JacobNeff-oq5km]

Secession has always been legal. Read the Constitution. It says what the federal government CAN do and what the member states CAN'T do. Crucially missing is any prohibition on states withdrawing from the union or the delegation of power to the federal government to stop it. If anything, the power of states to dissolve their membership is codified in the tenth.

[@ThomasG1231]

I think you guys have been shadow banned. I’m subscribed but never see you in my feed.

[@krunoslavregvar477]

🍀 👍✌️👍 🍀