For as long as I can remember, this country has gotten itself all worked up every four years or so trying to pick just the right person to be in charge of the executive branch. It’s always a mess, and it always turns out the same way: We elect a president, and everything goes to pot. And now I hear we’re going to have to go through this again! We just had a president, for Pete’s sake, and it looks like we’re going to repeat the same stupid mistake we’ve already made 43 times before, only for the sake of tradition.
Before we get sucked into another whole rigmarole about national parties narrowing down their primary fields to select a nominee they hope appeals to the broadest cross-section of Americans, it’s time to realize that the presidency itself is the real problem, and we need a change. Think about it. When have we ever not had a president? Never. Not since we ratified the Constitution and established ourselves as a democratic republic, anyway, and that’s more than enough time to see that presidents do America more harm than good.
Take all the worst periods in American history—Vietnam, the Great Depression, Prohibition. In every case, without fail, we have had a president as the head of state. Who has signed every single bad bill into law? A president. What about the president who got us into the Civil War? He was a president through and through, just like the rest of the presidents. The truth is, you look at every major crisis, flu epidemic, and time of civil strife, and who has been sitting in the Oval Office? A damn president.
I’m sorry, but these are just the simple facts…
They say that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. Sounds an awful lot like what we’re doing choosing presidents to serve out terms of office, run the federal government, and act as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, over and over and over and over again. We’re just going through this charade because we think we have to, but we really don’t. Last time I checked, my garbage was getting picked up every Tuesday and Thursday, I had fresh running water, and my telephone was working perfectly, all without the highest elected official in the land even raising a finger. This country practically runs itself!…
Read the rest of the article here.
It looks like the Onion has stepped out of the realm of satire and into the world of realism.
{ 17 comments }
I have drafted, and am currently perfecting, a proposed articles of confederation, as part of a secessionist effort.
My proposed draft of a Confederation completely excludes a central executive. Instead, I have designed a single chamber Congress, with each state delegation having one vote and three quarters of the states being required for major decisions. There is a figurehead President, essentially for meeting and greeting and wining and dining foreign heads of states. He has no separate authority and would only be able to negotiate within the strict limits set by Congress and would be under the strict control and authority of the Congress. There is no provision for a Commander in Chief. There is no “prime minister” or equivalent, department heads would report directly to Congress, there would be no cabinet or coordination between departments, other than Congress itself.
I should also mention the total lack of central judiciary also.
You can easily design a chief executive out of government.
Mark B – how about designing the government out of governance? Why stop at the president? The lower-level government busybodies are just as capable of doing harm.
The actual presense of a government is not really needed for a society to function, protect, and govern itself.
To be honest, my mind is not made up on anarchy yet. I have a lot of questions to resolve about it. Until then, I will stake my position on the ultra-minimalist side of the fence. I might end up crossing to the anarchist side, just not enough info yet.
To the extent of reducing the central government, my document does about as much as you can. As for the states and localities, of course that progress has to be made in the individual states themselves. All I am dealing with here is just the federal government.
I propose a secessionist solution, particularly among the large states, perhaps breaking California into eight or more states. If you reduce a governing unit, you will reduce the potential and ability for abuse.
It would be simple enough to expunge the strong executive at the state level as well.
Digg the Onion article for others here:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Last_Thing_America_Needs_Is_Another_President
You’re right, of course, Mr. Ptak. We collectively seem to be searching for that leader astride a white horse, to lead us to our destiny. I recently came across a quote which essentially questioned handing over control of the most powerful (and deadly) organization on earth (the USA government) to the winner of a national popularity contest. Such seems to imply that societies have a latent “death wish”. Or is it that this is a game which the political class provides, to paraphrase Marx, to act a an opiate for the citizens.
But I don’t get my share of election excitement; I was again in the majority consisting of those who just didn’t bother. Haven’t bothered for over 40 eligible years and feel better for it. But then, I still “enjoy†the “benefits†provided by the political class. Ugg! –Just now coming to grips with my little company’s income tax return.
The suggestions by Mark Babson are indeed stimulating. Although I am not one who advocates anarchy, I sincerely feel that secession is the most practical, intermediate answer. In fact, I sense that an implosion of the USA government will take place within my life time. That implosion will not “be a walk in the parkâ€, because a lot of people will be physically hurt and most will stand to lose their financial moorings. Hopefully, though, there can be a renaissance.
To get a sense of what that could look like, look up Joe Garreau’s book, “The Nine Nations of North Americaâ€.
I have often said that there is no collective solution to the problem of collectivism. Thus, it seems that surviving and prospering through any implosion is a “do it your self†project. We may find out sooner than it seems possible.
I was almost wondering whether there was going to a comment along of the lines: Of couse, you know Libertarians are the silent majority . . .
I would think if that were true then the majority could vote in a libertarian party who would then dismantle the trappings of government.
I personally wouldn’t see Libertarians getting into government to dismantle it a hypocrisy.
This article has been a hot topic of discussion,with a couple of Libertarian groups I belong to.It talks about how New Orleans is starting to do well,in spite of government’s abandoning it.I guess most of you have seen it by now.It is an example of how the Konkin’s “three A’s” can be implemented in the real world.Wouldn’t it be great,if New Orleans was left alone,and then developed into a truly free Agorist model city-state? We can only hope…
Regarding the question of the necessity of a governemnt I agree with the following:
“The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government.”
(Mises, Human Action, Chapter VIII, Section 2)
Did Mises ever comment on private security?
People kepp talking about leaders, when is Washington going to realize we don’t want leaders, we want public servants?
Mark B
Why do you require a “figurehead President, essentially for meeting and greeting and wining and dining foreign heads of states?” Should such mobsters and criminals turn up they’d best be greeted by a jester who’d taunt them with cutting remarks about their true natures. Better, greet them with an angry mob, have them charged, detained and tried for their crimes.
Interesting how an assumption that any of these people should be respected or treated with civility tends to obscure identification of their natures and what they are actualy involved in.
Regards
Sione
Actually, I could agree with you on that.
Unfortunately, diplomatic niceties must be followed.
You know when you start to agree with the satire in The Onion, you’re officially “out there.”
In the Nixon administration, my father told me, “Son, if you think this president is bad, wait’ll you see the next one.”
That man was never wrong about this for the rest of his life.
Did Mises ever comment on private security?
I enjoy this post it is satirical, entertaining, and quite possibly true. Your idea of a president being the problem may hold some merit, but maybe you will be encouraged by a president who adopts my views on my blog at http://www.americaneedshonestchange.blog.com
Keep up the good humor.
Regarding Mises on Private Security:
Neither in Human Action, nor in Science and History, nor in Bureaucracy, nor in The Anticapitalistic Mentality, nor in any of his short essays I read have I seen Mises comment on private security, not speaking of substituting private security for a state police force.
In fact, he says:
“Bureaucratic management, as distinguished from profit management, is the method applied in the conduct of administrative affairs, the result of which has no cash value on the market. The successful performance of the duties entrusted to the care of a police department is of the greatest importance for the preservation of social cooperation and benefits each member of society.”
AND
“Bureaucratic conduct of affairs is, as such, not an evil. It is the only [p. 311] appropriate method of handling governmental affairs, i.e., the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion. As government is necessary, bureaucratism is–in this field–no less necessary.”
(Mises, Human Action, Chapter XV, Section 10)
Best,
Nima
Comments on this entry are closed.