Gosh. And I was soooooooo hoping you’d like it!

Putting aside how unhinged your rant is, I’ll try to address it’s numerous flaws logically.

First, you say that my essay “fails utterly” to show that term limits are an awful idea. But yet you “utterly” ignore all of the points I make except for one. You say you do that in the interests of “parsimony” (Thesaurus.com is awesome, isn’t it!). But the fact that you ignored how awful I showed term limits to be even before getting into the anti-democratic argument renders your claim nonsensical. If someone makes 5 points and you ignore 4, it’s hard to claim that their argument “utterly” failed.

Now, to address the one point you did have the energy to make: Sure, I guess you can say that democracy is not an “unalloyed good” (one can overuse Thesaurus.com). And the bill of rights is anti-democratic. But obviously there is a compelling argument the other way. Democracy is not an unalloyed bad either. Yes, the Bill of Rights is somewhat anti-democratic. But so is, for example, allowing the Vice President to oveturn election results he doesn’t like, or imposing a poll tax or arresting people for voting the wrong way.

The point being that democracy is, for the most part good, and preserving democratic principles should be the default option. Some values, such as free speech are so important that we do place some restraints on democracy. Others, such as not liking the dude who some people in a place we’ve never been have elected to represent them do not meet the thresshold as being worth impinging on democracy.

To put it more simply, just barking out “Hey! The Bill of Rights is anti-democratic” does not justify any and every other attack on democracy you can dream up. And no trips to Thesaurus.com or rude comments will ever change that.

Toodle-Pip