Do we really need a president?

[Icymudpuppy]

We haven't had a congressional declaration of war since 1941. All wars since the peace treaty was signed with Japan in 1945 have been illegally waged by an unaccountable executive with too much presidential power.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama have all either started or escalated an illegal war. They are all war criminals and constitution violators. Not to mention that all the agencies we love to hate, EPA, DEA, etc are executive branch departments.

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with a 53 member executive council 1 for each state and territory that requires a super majority (2/3rds) consent on every action. The executive council could be made up of the governors, and we could thus do away with federal military altogether and make each state's Guard activated only if the super majority decided for a military action AND that governor was one of the consenting votes.

Thoughts, Discussion?

[ShaneEnochs]

Yeah, we do. We just either need one that knows his limits, or a Congress that will enforce the limits.

[king_nothing_]

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with [...]

"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?" - Thomas Sowell

[TheGrinch]

The system is ideally set up for the branches to be checks and balances for eachother. Also the press was originally intended to be a "4th-estate" as a check and balance as well.

Now it's certainly debateable whether these can once again be checks-and-balances, and not just a corrupt relationships, but I'm not sure that abolishing the presidency would do anything but jsut shift the power and corruption in the other branches. In fact, it could only make Senate and House majorities even more dangerous as they are when they have a president from the same party, rather than the other. At least with opposing congress and presidents, you at least see an appearance of dissension.

In short, I think corruption is the problem, not necessarily the positions.

[heavenlyboy34]

A good start would be to just strip the presidency of most legal powers and give them to the legislature(the House, in particular).

[erowe1]

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

[Icymudpuppy]

The thing that really spurred this thought was the movie I watched last night. Amistad. The show portrays John Quincy Adams, arguably the last of the Founder generation arguing for freedom in the face of what had already become only 50 years after the constitution was ratified, a corrupt system in which the corrupt executive more interested in re-election than truth wielded direct control over the courts.

[James Madison]

No. The anti-federalists were right again.

[Icymudpuppy]

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

Excellent point. I see my idea as being a first step towards dismantling the federal juggernaut. Just like medical marijuana is a first step in ending the drug war. I know there are a lot of All or Nothing folks on this board, but slow and steady wins the race, I've heard.

[torchbearer]

no, we don't need a federal government at all.

[tttppp]

We haven't had a congressional declaration of war since 1941. All wars since the peace treaty was signed with Japan in 1945 have been illegally waged by an unaccountable executive with too much presidential power.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama have all either started or escalated an illegal war. They are all war criminals and constitution violators. Not to mention that all the agencies we love to hate, EPA, DEA, etc are executive branch departments.

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with a 53 member executive council 1 for each state and territory that requires a super majority (2/3rds) consent on every action. The executive council could be made up of the governors, and we could thus do away with federal military altogether and make each state's Guard activated only if the super majority decided for a military action AND that governor was one of the consenting votes.

Thoughts, Discussion?

Terrible idea. Eliminate congress and state and local powers and hold one person accountable. Thats the correct way to manage anything. One person responsible for one responsibility. That way, if things fuck up, everyone will have no doubt who to blame.

Right now we have a congress with hundreds of members responsible for the same thing. If things fuck up, all they have to do is blame it on everyone else. Additionally, there are layers of state and local government, which creates more of this problem. Nobody is accountable because government officials can just blame each other, or blame the system as a whole, which nobody ever considers fixing.

[heavenlyboy34]

no, we don't need a federal government at all.
Thread winner.

[heavenlyboy34]

Terrible idea. Eliminate congress and state and local powers and hold one person accountable. Thats the correct way to manage anything. One person responsible for one responsibility. That way, if things fuck up, everyone will have no doubt who to blame.

Right now we have a congress with hundreds of members responsible for the same thing. If things fuck up, all they have to do is blame it on everyone else. Additionally, there are layers of state and local government, which creates more of this problem. Nobody is accountable because government officials can just blame each other, or blame the system as a whole, which nobody ever considers fixing.
Ah, you agree with Hoppe that a King is preferable to a president/congress. Good man! :D

[tttppp]

Ah, you agree with Hoppe that a King is preferable to a president/congress. Good man! :D

Thats true, but I was not suggesting a king. I was suggesting more like a CEO, where he would be responsible for everything but would still be held accountable by another entity, kind of like how most CEOs are held in check by the board of directors. In business, if a CEO lies to the board, he gets fired. In our government, if the president makes complete lies, not only does he not get impeached, he gets re-elected by making up more bullshit.

[torchbearer]

Thats true, but I was not suggesting a king. I was suggesting more like a CEO, where he would be responsible for everything but would still be held accountable by another entity, kind of like how most CEOs are held in check by the board of directors. In business, if a CEO lies to the board, he gets fired. In our government, if the president makes complete lies, not only does he not get impeached, he gets re-elected by making up more bullshit.

one tyrant is preferable to many.

[Origanalist]

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

[torchbearer]

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

I know where my mayor lives, i know his family. i can get my hands around his throat.

[tttppp]

one tyrant is preferable to many.

When there is only one tyrant, people know who to blame, and the tyrant is forced to start doing what he is supposed to.

[torchbearer]

When there is only one tyrant, people know who to blame, and the tyrant is forced to start doing what he is supposed to.

one bullet. regicide.

[tttppp]

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

If you would rather have just local governments and no state and fed governments, thats fine. But having local governments AND state and federal governments creates overlapping responsibilities where nobody is in charge.

[Revolution9]

No. In an odd way..that is why RP should be in the Oval Office.

Rev9

[Carson]

We haven't had a congressional declaration of war since 1941. All wars since the peace treaty was signed with Japan in 1945 have been illegally waged by an unaccountable executive with too much presidential power.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton, Bush 2, and Obama have all either started or escalated an illegal war. They are all war criminals and constitution violators. Not to mention that all the agencies we love to hate, EPA, DEA, etc are executive branch departments.

Given the propensity of abuse of power by the executive branch, and the general failure to make any effort to use the veto to check the other branches perhaps the abolition of the office of president is in order.

Perhaps the president could be Replaced with a 53 member executive council 1 for each state and territory that requires a super majority (2/3rds) consent on every action. The executive council could be made up of the governors, and we could thus do away with federal military altogether and make each state's Guard activated only if the super majority decided for a military action AND that governor was one of the consenting votes.

Thoughts, Discussion?

Maybe we don't, but it makes things easier for those that control our county.

Then again if we ever do make a move to restore law, order, and the Constitution we will need a wise leader.

[Origanalist]

If you would rather have just local governments and no state and fed governments, thats fine. But having local governments AND state and federal governments creates overlapping responsibilities where nobody is in charge.

My no was in response to this.


Originally Posted by erowe1

Do we really need the federal government?

Let's leave aside arguments about anarchism. Do those who believe in the state see any role for that particular one, the regime in DC? Is there anything it does that's actually good and that couldn't be done by the states?

Having no State government is something I am not opposed to, but I think the starting point should be dc when talking about eliminating government.

[idiom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js1EJZ6h_KE

[mport1]

Nope, and we don't need the federal government in general. They provide nothing of value to the population.

[tttppp]

My no was in response to this.



Having no State government is something I am not opposed to, but I think the starting point should be dc when talking about eliminating government.

My point is, if you want state governments, fine. If you want federal government, fine. Just don't have both federal governments and state governments and local governments.

[Origanalist]

My point is, if you want state governments, fine. If you want federal government, fine. Just don't have both federal governments and state governments and local governments.

Ok, explain why.

[Danke]

The system is ideally set up for the branches to be checks and balances for eachother. Also the press was originally intended to be a "4th-estate" as a check and balance as well.


Actually, the "4th estate" is supposed to be the Jury. Via nullification.

[heavenlyboy34]

Actually, the "4th estate" is supposed to be the Jury. Via nullification. Truth.

[tttppp]

Ok, explain why.

I've already explained it to some extent. In order to run anything effectively everyone needs to have a responsibility. It works best when there is one person in charge of one responsibility. What never works is having dozens of people in charge of the same responsibility. When you do that, nothing gets done. All you end up with is a bunch of debate and nobody gets anything done because nobody is ultimately in charge. Even if everyone is competent and on the same page, it still wouldn't be as effective as having just one competent person running things. Additionally, there's no motivation to get anything done, because they can simply blame each other. And that has worked for hundreds of years.

Having the combination of local, state, and federal governments creates a similar problem. In in giving area in the U.S., there are 3 groups in charge: local, state, and federal. None of them have the authority to get things done if they wanted too because their authority is split in three parts. Additionally, it has the problem where each of the governments can blame each other. On top of that, each of these governments have a legislative branch where even more people share the same responsibilty and can blame each other when things go wrong.

It would be much better to have one person in charge, even if that was Obama. In the case of Obama, his policies would fail beyond a reasonable doubt, and when he's impeached, we can take the country in the right direction.

[idiom]

I've already explained it to some extent. In order to run anything effectively everyone needs to have a responsibility. It works best when there is one person in charge of one responsibility. What never works is having dozens of people in charge of the same responsibility. When you do that, nothing gets done. All you end up with is a bunch of debate and nobody gets anything done because nobody is ultimately in charge. Even if everyone is competent and on the same page, it still wouldn't be as effective as having just one competent person running things. Additionally, there's no motivation to get anything done, because they can simply blame each other. And that has worked for hundreds of years.

Having the combination of local, state, and federal governments creates a similar problem. In in giving area in the U.S., there are 3 groups in charge: local, state, and federal. None of them have the authority to get things done if they wanted too because their authority is split in three parts. Additionally, it has the problem where each of the governments can blame each other. On top of that, each of these governments have a legislative branch where even more people share the same responsibilty and can blame each other when things go wrong.

It would be much better to have one person in charge, even if that was Obama. In the case of Obama, his policies would fail beyond a reasonable doubt, and when he's impeached, we can take the country in the right direction.

New Zealand has a unitary state with a single parliament. We seem to get things done pretty efficiently. Each ministry has a single elected person in charge of it, blame for failure will take down either the individual or the party pretty rapidly. There can be up to eight parties with more than 5% of the seats at any time.

The are numerous other parliamentary democracies around the globe that function magnificently. As the video above that I posted notes, there have only been 4 presidential democracies that lasted more than 30 years. They are inherently unstable.

Unless people on this forum are going to argue that the USA has hardly any corruption in its governing system at all...

[AGRP]

Tyranny exists at every level of government. Anything bigger than a city government is virtually uncontrollable and unnecessary. Ever seen the videos of what the keen protesters go through? And that's the city!

[tttppp]

New Zealand has a unitary state with a single parliament. We seem to get things done pretty efficiently. Each ministry has a single elected person in charge of it, blame for failure will take down either the individual or the party pretty rapidly. There can be up to eight parties with more than 5% of the seats at any time.

The are numerous other parliamentary democracies around the globe that function magnificently. As the video above that I posted notes, there have only been 4 presidential democracies that lasted more than 30 years. They are inherently unstable.

Unless people on this forum are going to argue that the USA has hardly any corruption in its governing system at all...

I would need more information about New Zealand to say much about that. Its almost impossible for a parliament to be as effective as one great leader.

[idiom]

I would need more information about New Zealand to say much about that. Its almost impossible for a parliament to be as effective as one great leader.

Churchill did pretty well.

[Lothario]

You can operate under whatever president, congress, or authoritative figure you'd like - just don't force me to accept your personal decisions on the issue. In return, I won't force you to accept my personal decisions either.

[tttppp]

Churchill did pretty well.

The system I am proposing has never been used before in government. But it has been used very well by businesses. I would take the best leaders in business over Churchill any day.

[idiom]

The system I am proposing has never been used before in government. But it has been used very well by businesses. I would take the best leaders in business over Churchill any day.

Having re-read your posts, I suggest you look into New Zealand's Parliament and cabinet system. Responsibility for things is very definite and very public and restricted to individuals.

Ministers resign if there is even a hint of corruption or possible conflict of interest. Speeding Tickets are pretty detrimental to political careers...

[erowe1]

New Zealand has a unitary state with a single parliament. We seem to get things done pretty efficiently.

When the government does things efficiently, is that good or bad?

[Tod]

"effective" "works best"

Aren't those arguments against?

[idiom]

Compared to corrupt, embezzling and wasteful?

[Tod]

"effective" = efficient at eliminating liberty, which seems to have become the primary function of government these days.

[jbauer]

Who would we blame for all the worlds problems?

[erowe1]

Compared to corrupt, embezzling and wasteful?

If you're a shop owner in a neighborhood run by a criminal gang, would you rather that criminal gang be wasteful or efficient with its resources?

[lx43]

The institutional imperative that exist in all organizations is to grow. In govt case to grow means to gain power and power for govt means more revenue, more regulation, more laws and in our case, the more power the govt has means less freedom for the countries citizens. The Congress, President, and Supreme Court will gladly distort anything they possibly can to increase their control.

The founders of this country made a grave mistake in setting up the balance of power. They for whatever reason didn't create a means to stop the organism govt from growing. Yes they provided checks and balances within the govt itself but they didn't provide a mechanism to restrain the checks and balances when they inevitably would conspire with each other to gain power.


I don't think laws should be able to pass simply with a simple majority. This means that 51% can control the other 49%, its a majority run dictatorship that will control the minority. I think any law should require at least 2/3rd majority vote in both houses before something becomes law.

There should a sunset provision in all laws where every 2 years every law enacted will come up for review. Those laws that aren't voted on and passed will be removed from the books.

A simple majority of states that believe a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional should be able to nullify any federal law.

Personal and jury nullification are other means to restrain govt. Jury nullification in my opinion should be fully implemented in all court cases where the law itself can be judged by a jury as to whether it should be fair or not. Even the Supreme Court should not be able to overturn a case where the law has been nullified by a jury. Furthermore, I as a person should able to withdraw my consent to be governed by simply refusing to pay tax or follow regulation. As long as I'm not committing a crime against someone I should be left the hell alone by govt. I would guarantee you that federal spending would be a LOT lower if people had a right to withdraw from paying taxes.

[tttppp]

Having re-read your posts, I suggest you look into New Zealand's Parliament and cabinet system. Responsibility for things is very definite and very public and restricted to individuals.

Ministers resign if there is even a hint of corruption or possible conflict of interest. Speeding Tickets are pretty detrimental to political careers...

Based on what you are saying, there is still not one person in charge of everything. How can you accurately divide up the respnsibilties if you do not have one person in charge to do so. The government you have described is probably an upgrade over our government, but it would not be an upgrade over one great leader.

[idiom]

Based on what you are saying, there is still not one person in charge of everything. How can you accurately divide up the respnsibilties if you do not have one person in charge to do so. The government you have described is probably an upgrade over our government, but it would not be an upgrade over one great leader.

We don't have much in the way of a constitution, so a Prime Minister who can cobble together a 51% percent majority can do whatever he or she thinks the electorate will let them get away with. The Prime Minister assigns responsibility. If there is no majority then the assignment may be used to tie the coalition together, but thats the same as operating with a divided board meddling with executive hires.

[idiom]

If you're a shop owner in a neighborhood run by a criminal gang, would you rather that criminal gang be wasteful or efficient with its resources?

As a shop owner I am sure to hire the most effective, low cost gang.

Americans seem to go for the highest cost most ineffective gang... I am not impressed with the results personally.

[erowe1]

As a shop owner I am sure to hire the most effective, low cost gang.

Americans seem to go for the highest cost most ineffective gang... I am not impressed with the results personally.

Perhaps the one redeeming feature of the gang that subjugates us is its inefficiency. Or, as Will Rogers put it, "It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for."

[VBRonPaulFan]

No, central authority always leads to corruption. The more local the process gets the more power people have over their lives.

which, if you take that to its logical conclusion, means that each person should be considered by every other as a sovereign individual/state unto themselves. too many people wish to delegate away their responsibility for convenience....

[tttppp]

We don't have much in the way of a constitution, so a Prime Minister who can cobble together a 51% percent majority can do whatever he or she thinks the electorate will let them get away with. The Prime Minister assigns responsibility. If there is no majority then the assignment may be used to tie the coalition together, but thats the same as operating with a divided board meddling with executive hires.

How exactly does your system work? It appears as though there are still a lot of politics involved. Trying to convince people to support you to get 51% is not management, thats politics, and it doesn't work.

In business, board of directors can be divided, however they usually put the best person they know of to run the business the way the CEO sees fit. Businesses are not involved in politics on a day to day basis. The CEO does not need to gain 51% support from his managers for them to follow him. He demands people do what he says and thats all thats needed.

[brandon]

No we don't need a president. The first incarnation of our country, under the Articles of Confederation, didn't have a president. The executive office was a Hamiltonian big-government wet dream.

[tttppp]

No we don't need a president. The first incarnation of our country, under the Articles of Confederation, didn't have a president. The executive office was a Hamiltonian big-government wet dream.

The executive branch can serve a purpose. The legislative branches have always been whats holding this country back. Instead of good management out of our government, all we get is politics. This all stems from the fact that the legislative branch places hundreds of people in charge of one responsibility. Thats just idiotic management.

[nano1895]

I was going to say no at first but after reading this thread I do realize the importance of having someone to blame because it forces accountability. Sometimes I find myself wishing that we would have just 8 years of one party rule then the other party and people would finally realize that both suck. No more blaming the other party.

[Weston White]

Considering that the Legislature is now in operation fulltime and has its own House (minority/majority) Leaders and Spokespersons; that Congress now passes rule-making powers onto bureaucracies to thereafter act independently; that the generals truly command the will of the U.S. Military; and the VP, Secretary of State, and CIA handles most all foreign concerns, I would say that the puppet-position of POTUS could safely be annulled.

[idiom]

How exactly does your system work? It appears as though there are still a lot of politics involved. Trying to convince people to support you to get 51% is not management, thats politics, and it doesn't work.

In business, board of directors can be divided, however they usually put the best person they know of to run the business the way the CEO sees fit. Businesses are not involved in politics on a day to day basis. The CEO does not need to gain 51% support from his managers for them to follow him. He demands people do what he says and thats all thats needed.

Clearly you have never run a business of any scale. CEO's spend most of their day getting stake-holder buy-in. Well the good ones do.

[PierzStyx]

A good start would be to just strip the presidency of most legal powers and give them to the legislature(the House, in particular).

I'm wary of giving the House to much power. Its to directly answerable to the mob. I'd much rather restore the way senators were elected in state legislatures and then give them more power, if a shift on power is necessary.

[Gumba of Liberty]

As a shop owner I am sure to hire the most effective, low cost gang.

Americans seem to go for the highest cost most ineffective gang... I am not impressed with the results personally.

Our task as defenders of liberty is to point out the fact that we don't need any gang. To argue about the attributes of the "best" gang is missing the point. The gang should not exist.

[tttppp]

Clearly you have never run a business of any scale. CEO's spend most of their day getting stake-holder buy-in. Well the good ones do.

Actually I have. CEOs have to spend time convincing people about the long term direction, but they do not have to waste time on a day to day basis trying to convince people to do what he wants. He just says this what I want, now get it done.

But hey, thanks for the insult.