A recent article by Paradigm writer James Altucher suggested that the US Presidency is a useless job and asks, then urges these States to abolish the position.
It is an interesting question. And James makes some excellent points.
This is not the first time we here at TPOL have pondered this question, and perhaps you have also, over the years. Right now, especially reading Jim’s recent posting?
Our considered opinion? We really do not need a president; certainly not one with powers and a full-time job.
Not just because we do not need the mandatory human government that State and Federal Constitutions have saddled us with – especially given how those founding documents have been warped and perverted.
And not just because it is an expensive conceit. And unlike the British royal family, does not currently pay for itself. (That of course ignores just how the British royals acquired that incredible wealth in the first place. It wasn’t just Christmas and Birthday gifts.
The traditional and modern American presidency has given us many of the problems that have developed into the painful circumstances we endure in 2024. We could do without those.
But we do have a question, dear readers, to ask: if we got rid of the presidency as we know it today, how quickly would someone come up with something as bad? Or worse?
That was the problem is 1787, after all. Too many people were too comfortable with having a king. They just didn’t like how that monarch was chosen. And some of the flipperies associated with him. But the Constitution gave unwise power to the man elected to that office. And didn’t even fence him in, as they tried to do (and failed) with Congress. (The judiciary is a totally different but equally disgusting situation.) Starting with the Whiskey Rebellion (if not before), even the sainted Washington succumbed to the temptations of exercising power. Power he knew to be dangerous. Even Tommy Jefferson was not entirely successful in resisting temptation.
It’s mostly been all downhill since then.
And we suffer as a result. And our suffering grows with each one elected and serving.
Worse, we know it, but we still tolerate it – and indeed, welcome it. The next one will be better. That is what we Americans tell ourselves. We should barf at the mere thought of that nonsense.
Alternatives for the Constitution-style Chief Executive require more commentary. But think about it, and suggest some possibilities? And the ups and downs of that, versus what we have now.
At this point, perhaps anything would be better. Perhaps even a truly figurehead hereditary monarchy with nothing but power of persuasion.
Let us know.
The Price of Liberty 
Do we really need a POTUS?
A recent article by Paradigm writer James Altucher suggested that the US Presidency is a useless job and asks, then urges these States to abolish the position.
It is an interesting question. And James makes some excellent points.
This is not the first time we here at TPOL have pondered this question, and perhaps you have also, over the years. Right now, especially reading Jim’s recent posting?
Our considered opinion? We really do not need a president; certainly not one with powers and a full-time job.
Not just because we do not need the mandatory human government that State and Federal Constitutions have saddled us with – especially given how those founding documents have been warped and perverted.
And not just because it is an expensive conceit. And unlike the British royal family, does not currently pay for itself. (That of course ignores just how the British royals acquired that incredible wealth in the first place. It wasn’t just Christmas and Birthday gifts.
The traditional and modern American presidency has given us many of the problems that have developed into the painful circumstances we endure in 2024. We could do without those.
But we do have a question, dear readers, to ask: if we got rid of the presidency as we know it today, how quickly would someone come up with something as bad? Or worse?
That was the problem is 1787, after all. Too many people were too comfortable with having a king. They just didn’t like how that monarch was chosen. And some of the flipperies associated with him. But the Constitution gave unwise power to the man elected to that office. And didn’t even fence him in, as they tried to do (and failed) with Congress. (The judiciary is a totally different but equally disgusting situation.) Starting with the Whiskey Rebellion (if not before), even the sainted Washington succumbed to the temptations of exercising power. Power he knew to be dangerous. Even Tommy Jefferson was not entirely successful in resisting temptation.
It’s mostly been all downhill since then.
And we suffer as a result. And our suffering grows with each one elected and serving.
Worse, we know it, but we still tolerate it – and indeed, welcome it. The next one will be better. That is what we Americans tell ourselves. We should barf at the mere thought of that nonsense.
Alternatives for the Constitution-style Chief Executive require more commentary. But think about it, and suggest some possibilities? And the ups and downs of that, versus what we have now.
At this point, perhaps anything would be better. Perhaps even a truly figurehead hereditary monarchy with nothing but power of persuasion.
Let us know.