| | From Articles Discussions: A Corrupt Profession Emphasis added -- MEM
Post #0:
In a free society politicians would be like the sheriff in those fictional Westerns who want the job so they can maintain peace and fight crime. ... But that conception of politics is admittedly the best that's possible and doesn't resemble at all what politics has been throughout human history.
Post # 15:
Term limits in a free society are problematic: by what authority may anyone's running for office the second, third or fourth time be banned? They are free to seek office no matter how often they have held one. If it is a legitimate job, seeking it may not be forbidden.
Post #18:
In a free society politicians are hired to secure everyone's rights (see Declaration of Independence re: the institution of government). And evereyone has the right to apply for that job--it isn't coercive if properly carried out! One's right to liberty may be exercised by running for peace officer and such.
Post #20
Just because government is not a business it doesn't follow that governments don't employ people, that people aren't aspiring to government employment or office. Of course they do and have the right to do so in a free society.
Post #22
Citizens have the legal right to run for office. That's part of being a citizen. To restrict it is wrong. Moreover, unlike in the skit, this right is one that most can exercise. (One cannot have a right that one cannot, in principle, exercise, such as a right to square the circle.)
Post #27
Running for office would be such a right--not a basic one like life or liberty but one everyone has, nevertheless, in a free country. As to age limits, they are related to maturity, an objective precondition for holding office. Just like the right to enter into a contract, which kicks in only when one is of age.
Post #32
I, too, may not have personal objections to, distaste for, some of the limitations imposed on aspiring politicians but that isn't what is at issue. I am concerned with whether in a free society such limitations are proper. ... No one's rights are being violated when a person runs for office a second or third time; it is perfectly peaceful conduct. So why is it prohibited in a free country?
Dr. Tibor Machan is over the age of 18... 30... 35.... He is an American citizen. He cannot run for the office of President of the United States. Born in a foreign country, he is a naturalized citizen. (As noted, in some districts he cannot run for the bench, not being a member of the bar.)
- Is this because we do not (yet) live in a free society and therefore need to limit the Presidency to native born Americans;
- and does this mean than in a better world one where political principles of constitutional government were based in objective reality that any citizen could run for any office, including the Presidency.
- If the latter, how does that derive from the law of identity, given, as Dr. Machan has pointed out, that age limits on office are a function of maturity?
- Since women mature faster than men, should they have different age limits? Vote at 15, run for Senate at 25?
Non-citizens have the privilege of paying taxes. They are entitled to trial by jury (Miranda rights, etc., etc.) . They have always been able to serve in the military. They can attend public schools -- free for children; universities charge by residency, not citizenship -- and ride the public transits. In short, non-citizens have most of the same rights as citizens. However, they cannot vote.
Running for office is restricted on many grounds. When I ran for the Board of Trustees of my tax-based community college, I could gather 100 signatures from a specified range of precincts (no one gets to run with 100 signatuies from one precinct) -- or I could pay $100. Most offices are like that. You either get so many petitiion signatures or you pay some fee. Then, we have primary elections and general elections. Often, primaries include ballot initiatives, recalls, bonds or millages, and other tallies that are decided there and then, and are not reposted in the general election along with the successful primary candidates.
We have all kinds of rules for this. Perhaps in the best of all worlds, the rules would be different. Certainly, the rules vary over time and place, so all kinds of alternatives seem workable to some extent. I therefore ask:
Is there an objective application of an objective standard to sort all this out?
Is it true, as Dr. Tibor Machan theorizes, that "in a free society" there would be no rules for elections and anyone could always run for any office?
|
|
