Is the U.S. Better Off Without a President?

One of my friends from Disquis recommended this article, which popped up on my account's home page. After skimming through all seven of these points and reading the quotes that were used, I thought about sharing it with you guys in the Round Table while asking you this debatable question: Is the U.S. better off without a president as a response to how much hated both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are as our presidential candidates?

well you americans love our monarchy xd even though u fought to be independent xd

well what you replace presidents with?

The best argument against anarchy is looking at any group composed of enough human beings. Rules are needed to prevent ones from abusing the others, because it turns out that most humans tend to be more selfish than the ideal would wish and extremely short-sighted as well. So leaders and rules are a necessary evil. The best of all the bad options there are.

I mean I don't think we can get any more fucked so sure, why not. Either way the world loses.

I made a discord server with no rules, and within 2 minutes we had 20+ servers.
Anarchy isn't a great concept.

Yeah, the thing about a lack of structure is that you don't have a structure to enforce that lack of structure. If some people want to organise and collect resources for good or for evil, it's going to happen. Might as well deal with the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know, you know?

Kanzler said:

Yeah, the thing about a lack of structure is that you don't have a structure to enforce that lack of structure. If some people want to organise and collect resources for good or for evil, it's going to happen. Might as well deal with the devil you know vs. the devil you don't know, you know?

Click to expand...

Exactly - even Hell has its structure of rings.

Anarchy is just a futile and callously self-serving exercise in the collapse of order, with zero benefit for those without the extremely niche setup to survive, let alone thrive, in such a 'system'. It speaks volumes about the character of those wanting it that they would consider throwing millions of people under the bus in order to live out some arrogant fantasy.

Anarchy is a fools dream. It creates a mess of disagreeing factions and relies too much on the assumption that people are decent. The problem here is that human beings are inherently selfish and without a government enforcing rules you're ultimately going to have people who break them.

Of course, the minute you set up rules anyway you also set up a method to determine if rules have been broken. Then one way or another you've inadvertently created a governing body anyway. So basically, not only is anarchy a terrible idea but it's also an unsustainable one.

The good news though, is that I agree that a prime minister or a president isn't exactly a necessity in a democratic government. Generally speaking their voice doesn't really amount to more than anyone else's anyway.

Im kinda an anarchist (others would disagree), but I recognize that if one pressed a button to end government, it would all go to hell. Spontaneous Order is not a thing... to have an anarchist society, a lot of conditions must be met. Its just simply not realistic in a modern context. I would give the article credibility if it talked about culture, property rights, family values, economic stability and growth, localization, the necessity of government to maintain order until conditions are met, rule of law, or anything. There is a lot.

Gimmepie said, "Anarchy is a fool's dream." He is right because to advocate for anarchism without advocating for meeting conditions is the road to suicide and "anarchy."

Yes, a president is necessary. In the wayyyyyy future, maybe not. But for our short term needs, we need a president. I would rather have a constitutional monarchy than the democracy the article proposes as a method of maintaining order and relative freedom.

I read once a (perhaps serious, perhaps joking) suggestion that the president should be chosen from someone in the public who isn't running for office because it should he held by someone who doesn't want it. That way you can help ensure that the leaders aren't there for self-interest. If there was some reliable method to choose someone who was still qualified then I'd give it some thought, but that process would be just as difficult to free of bias as the election process we already have.

Maybe, but then who will run the country? Every country needs a leader. Anarchy may sound nice to some people (but definitely not me), but it's been proven that it simply cannot work in today's world. But with the politics become increasingly full of extremists, what lies ahead is unknown. It's hard to say with a country like the US, with all its conceited, decadent politicians who sponge off of people's hard-earned money to support bloated campaigns.

zakisrage said:

Maybe, but then who will run the country? Every country needs a leader.

Click to expand...

Probably some sort of "parliamentary sovereignty" sort of deal. Congress would absorb the powers of the former executive branch. Its still a democracy without a president.

BadSheep said:

Probably some sort of "parliamentary sovereignty" sort of deal. Congress would absorb the powers of the former executive branch. Its still a democracy without a president.

Click to expand...

You mean like a provisional government?

Still, one person has to be in charge to represent the country in foreign affairs.

The problem is that many Americans (especially ones on the far-right) seem to think all foreign influence on their government is evil. Honestly, people like Clinton and Trump's ignorance of the rest of the world makes them barely any better than ISIS.

zakisrage said:

You mean like a provisional government?

Still, one person has to be in charge to represent the country in foreign affairs.

The problem is that many Americans (especially ones on the far-right) seem to think all foreign influence on their government is evil. Honestly, people like Clinton and Trump's ignorance of the rest of the world makes them barely any better than ISIS.

Click to expand...

No. Like congress IS the government. They would probably delegate representatives to deal with foreign affairs.

Define far-right. Far-right is economically free markets. For some reason people use it to describe nazism and hitler, which are economically centrist, maybe leaning left a bit.

And Clinton is a globalist. What is your point exactly?

zakisrage said:

You mean like a provisional government?

Still, one person has to be in charge to represent the country in foreign affairs.

The problem is that many Americans (especially ones on the far-right) seem to think all foreign influence on their government is evil. Honestly, people like Clinton and Trump's ignorance of the rest of the world makes them barely any better than ISIS.

Click to expand...

More like a Parliamentary system in which parliament (so Congress) would appoint a member/representative as Prime Minister/President answerable on the Legislative, as most European countries have.

Make it like the Soviet Union, only don't screw it up.

We need a government that actually gives a crap about the proletariat. Jail the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, repeal the Patriot Act (no more NSA spying on us, etc), end the for-profit prison system, nerf the Democrats and Republicans until they have no power, make weed legal, universal health care, nuke ISIL (or whatever those scumbags call themselves now) until they surrender, tax religious institutions, and have a leader that doesn't suck at all. These are my demands for what America SHOULD be.

No, because not having a third branch to juxtapose with the other two in our system of checks and balances would completely throw the system out of whack. An executive is needed to make calls that a congress of 500+ can't quickly make, among other things. In addition to directing a policy agenda.

What other form should we have? What, we just have the same system but without a president? If you wanted anarchy you can play Fallout any day of the week. Anarchy is the result of a toppled governmental system and creates a power vacuum that begs to be filled. Just look at the French Revolution. Once that system went, it was executions all day everyday (granted the French monarchy was... you know). And what of the CCCP? They imploded and their nuclear materials began to go missing. The Roman Empire? The Pharaohs? I think I prefer our system over a lot of other systems in place currently. It's flawed, but we're flawed, so...

Something seems remarkably anti-democratic about saying "Okay, so some of you have realised Clinton and Trump are the worst, so we're not going to have a president now." Let people do their voting. If you're going to make such a change do it when you're not so far into an election.

But I suppose that's not quite the point of the question. You're asking what I think about the concept of a president in general. Yes, America should have a president.