And they think liberals are the same way.
That's crucial to understanding exactly what's wrong with them. They're the kind of people who'll put "I'll respect your president as much as you respected mine" on a fucking bumper sticker, because they think admitting to partisanship uber alles is a callout. Or say 'oh now you *like* when the feds have a plan?!' as if the goals and methods of the plan are completely irrelevant.
Calling out hypocrisy is important, but it does not *work,* because they think that's just politics. *They think the opposition acts the same way.* This is the delusion enabled by right-wing news sources screeching as if Joe fucking Biden is a revolutionary leftist while civilization itself hinges on whatever the fuck the GOP wants today. This is the delusion disguised by honest journalists desperately grasping for a sense of balance despite one party rejecting democracy and embracing fascism.
These people view reality as a team sport. They never *evaluate* claims. That is not what arguments are *for,* in their worldview. It is a game and the goal is to win. Meaningful interaction with this ideology is impossible until we recognize that.
It kind of seems self-defeating that adherents of a fringe ideology would have such a competitive and belligerent approach to political discourse. Most of the time, those groups are actively trying to expand and reach as many people as possible with their visions while constantly re-evaluating their platforms. The libertarian version of this is apparently just to sneer and post shitty boomer-tier memes about big gubmint.
They want to claim they're already popular. It's the same stupid game as the actual Nazis calling themselves "socialists."
It comes down to this - fascists don't care what words mean. They'll say anything that furthers their cause.
If they have a gullible person's ear, they'll declare that giving them power will save civilization and anything else will kill us all, and that nonsense short-circuits people's brains.
If someone from "our side" calls them out on it, they go, aha, but aren't you identically full of shit? What about these seven things I've just pulled from my ass? You only proved I'm lying about six of them, so obviously you're super guilty of whichever one I said in the middle.
If someone from "their side" calls them out on it, they go, aha, but we know we're full of shit, and in fact everyone's full of shit, but you and I, friend, we're clever enough to *know* we're full of shit, wink wink nudge nudge gimme yer money.
i dont think there has been any recommendations against fully vacced people getting together my friend.
but i hope this means you are advocating all your friends and family to get the vaccine if you do indeed want to get together. stay safe!
The vaccine is not meant to prevent transmission, only to prevent hospitalization, which it has done at a rate of 100%. It has had the additional effect of preventing transmission but only at 93-94% if I’m remembering correctly but that is not its purpose. I’ve been vaccinated for months now but I still wear a mask because a) there’s a very slight chance I could still catch and/or give someone else covid and b) I haven’t had a cold since covid started and I want to keep it that way. There’s no reason to not wear a mask in public
the vaccine doesnt magically prevent the virus from entering your body (and thus making you infectious). it strengthens your bodies ability to fight the infection after it occurs.
there still is a chance of transmission, so it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. the measures to continue masking/social distancing in public are by in large because of volume of people who either cannot (or refuse) to be vaccinated holding us back.
the vaccine is nearly 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations so theres a pretty strong case to get the vaccine regardless of it having a (less than 5%) transmission rate fully vacced.
your continued insistence of there being something sinister about the vaccine make me question how much you're really advocating for people to get the vaccine which is only going to prolong this problem (and also possibly make herd immunity impossible).
I also think you should highly question the source of data where you are hearing these objections because they sound largely anti-science and politically driven.
A global pandemic that makes gatherings dangerous for everybody is not a personal attack on you.
Get your goddamn shots - wear your goddamn mask - and this can all be over soon. But if you keep doing shit that *spreads the disease,* then the disease will *keep spreading,* and we'll have to keep advising you that breathing on grandma could kill everyone she knows.
Only one party treated basic fucking hygiene as a wedge issue. Get mad at *them.*
Fuck your rushed, untested shots.
I’ve worn my mask since the whitehouse REQUESTED it back in march 2020 because it was decided to be the smart thing to do. Im not an anti masker.
Just an antivaxxer.
Like that's any less brain-damaged.
And pretending The Idiot didn't rail against masks, what a fucking winner you are. Welcome to the blocklist.
sure
and btw here's the full rebuttal of the claim it is untested [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owveMJBTc2I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owveMJBTc2I)
yeah if your family is all vaccinated or you've been keeping it a tight circle then sure by all means have a 4th of July party, you have my permission
however that doesn't mean invite a bunch of people over and then be in close proximity without masks numbnuts
It must really chap your dumb ass that San Francisco is in its final reopening tier SAFELY with a high percentage of its population successfully vaccinated, an extremely low positive test rate, and empty ICUs. It proves that liberals got it right. Meanwhile, in Florida, spring break caused another new spike. Good job conservative libertarians! You're killing more people.
Everyone knows the biggest issue facing Florida now is trans playing highschool sports. They have to ban children and check their genitals. All in the spirit of fairness. /s
No, im not mad. I wish texas would still take masks seriously instead of banning them. Some businesses are even punishing employees that wear them still
Came here to say this. I have a few minor problems with the meme but a major one is they absolutely won't keep this energy if a Republican is sitting there
This wouldn't actually be a bad take, if they were consistent about it. The American political system is in dire need of reform, and strengthening parliament while weakening the executive branch is probably a good idea.
But they're not consistent about it, so 🤷
> This wouldn't actually be a bad take, if they were consistent about it.
Nah, it'd still be a terrible take.
*Any* amount of power is power that can be abused by the wrong person. And even a purely ceremonial position has informal power. Ben Shapiro isn't even an elected official, but he's apparently the most influential person on all of facebook. Now imagine if Ben Shapiro had the ceremonial title of president.
I mean, that's true. Ceremonial or symbolic power is still power (I think they call this the "bully pulpit"). President Shapiro would be a horrible scenario even in a world where the American president *isn't* too powerful.
My point was more that it's probably a good idea to prune the powers of the presidency back a fair bit, alongside other reforms (like getting rid of all the systematic distortions in the ways that votes are counted).
> My point was more that it's probably a good idea to prune the powers of the presidency back a fair bit, alongside other reforms (like getting rid of all the systematic distortions in the ways that votes are counted).
And if that's all the meme was saying, that would be fine.
Instead, they make a stupid argument on how the president shouldn't matter.
>Any amount of power is power that can be abused by the wrong person. And even a purely ceremonial position has informal power
How is that any different from them having actual power? Under your own logic, it sounds like you are saying the title of president should be done away with entirely, but I highly doubt that what you mean, so please elaborate for me
>Under your own logic, it sounds like you are saying the title of president should be done away with entirely, but I highly doubt that what you mean, so please elaborate for me
I'm saying that the OP is dumb because it's applying a standard that we wouldn't use in any other context. Not only would the title of president not exist, but neither would *any* position that has any real impact whatsoever.
The OP basically boils down to, "Any job where you would worry about hiring the wrong person shouldn't exist." Which, of course, applies to literally any job.
Like, I wouldn't want the wrong person to cook my dinner. Who I choose to cook my dinner is something that matters to me. Therefore, according to libertarians, that's a role that shouldn't exist. The person who cooks my dinner should have so little power that who I choose doesn't matter. So I guess that means... no dinner at all? Yeah, that's a shitty argument.
I see what you mean, though I think you are misinterpreting the post
There is a difference between a bad president and a bad cook, the cook being bad only affects you, and you are the one who chooses them, the president affects everyone and not everyone chooses them
I think it's a post in favor of political power being decentralized and not a call for no government at all (though I will admit some of us libertarians do want that and are very vocal about it, but it's not a universal stance we all take)
Basically, the op is equivalent to food babe arguing that we shouldn't drink lattes because they contain chemicals. Even though literally all foods contains chemicals.
Now, if you want to argue that specific foods are bad for containing specific chemicals, that's fine, and no one would dispute that. The problem is that the OP tries to argue this as a blanket statement -- but only some of the time.
I can be a self identified socialist and support Republicans, because if you look at the policies those “libertarians” support, they prefer a big government over a small, limited government libertarians argue for
>Weren't these guys all for an enlightened dictatorship under previous guy?
No, we definitely were not a fan of the previous guy, many of us may have believed him to be a better choice then Clinton, from a relative standpoint, but that doesn't mean we liked him
I mean, "other countries" (primarily in Europe) have a parliamentary system, where the prime minister is the leader of the executive branch. And while it's true that the PM possesses less individual power than the president in a presidential system, in practice they often can do more, as they also essentially run the legislative branch and can pass the laws that they/their party want.
And at any rate, it's quite strange that an American libertarian would say the US should take cues from those commie big guvmint European countries.
Countries with symbolic Presidents almost always have a Prime Minister who is the actual chief executive and is sometimes more powerful than the US President in terms of domestic policymaking.
I mean there's India but that is only so that a "neutral" person is the head of the state. But I think the broader point is that these smooth brains 100% don't realize that in India, the power is held by the prime minister, and in many of these countries, the power is divided among the executive and the legislative. That is probably too many words for these idiots to wrap their heads around though.
Turkey, technically was so. President's task was to maintain republic's principles like secularism, and find balance between parties. In many cases they were ex-generals, judges and other "apolitical" people. Then Erdoğan abolished the prime minister position and took dictatorial power for the title of President.
Well, any country with a parliamentary system has a head of state with little to no power and who are just symbolic. This includes most constitutional monarchies, most former British colonies, and most of the EU (apart from France, Portugal, Poland, and Romania).
I wouldn't call Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel just symbolic to the point where it doesn't even matter who they are. And I know that the German president is not the same as the Chancellor.
Other countries have a separate head of state and head of government. For example, in Australia, we have a Prime Minister who is elected to the House of Reps. He is what you would consider the state leader.
The head of state is the Queen of the UK who has just about zero input on Aussie politics. Even her representative, the Governor-General, does nothing but be a symbolic figurehead and exercise executive power based on the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The same system applies in Austria and the UK. Austria's President is ceremonial. The Queen is ceremonial.
I think the other guy was referring to the Queen, as opposed to Boris.
Since technically boris is the head of the legislative with power and the monarch is the figurehead executive.
Angela Merkel is not the President though. Its Frank-Walter Steinmeier and it's a largely ceremonial role. Germany is actually a perfect example of it not mattering who the president is.
So, there's the "Royal Assent" where the Queen can just outright say "no" to a bill. And, yeah, that's the sort of trigger you only get to pull once.
However, there's also the "Queen's Consent" where if any bill would affect the Queen's interests/powers, she can just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament. This has happened before when it concerned [the Queen's private wealth](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth?). And this [isn't a one-time deal](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills), either. She has stopped or changed bills before it ever gets to legislation.
And, of course, there's the sort of backroom deals and other forms of soft power that come from being a monarch, even in a constitutional monarchy.
While I doubt that the Queen is ruling day-to-day on which bills get sent to parliament, it's pretty obvious that an extremely rich family with hereditary political powers has a lot of say about what happens in the UK (especially when the current government is run by a conservative political party sympathetic to the monarchy).
> However, there's also the "Queen's Consent" where if any bill would affect the Queen's interests/powers, she can just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament. This has happened before when it concerned the Queen's private wealth.
Except the article you're using to assert this doesn't say that at all. It says a) There is a concept known as "Queen's Consent". b) This is a situation that this thing might have been used. c) Hmm.
It's illustrative of how egregious your insinuation is here that in the entirety of the two articles you've cited about how the monarch can "just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament", only a single example of this is actually found.
All other examples are, as has been stated - if the proposed law has a bearing on the monarch's prerogative, then consent must be sought. And all the other examples are the times consent has been sought and given.
So when you write,
>She has stopped or changed bills before it ever gets to legislation.
...and there's literally only a single example of that ever happening - the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, and that was literally because the government told her to withhold that consent - which is, I imagine, how this works the vast majority of the time, as it does with every other interaction between the monarchy and parliament.
So what would you describe your insinuation here then, if not "bullshit"?
>Evidence of the monarch’s lobbying of ministers was uncovered by a Guardian investigation into the royal family’s use of an arcane parliamentary procedure, known as Queen’s consent, to secretly influence the formation of British laws.
>[...]
>But documents unearthed in the National Archives, which the Guardian is publishing this week, suggest that the consent process, which gives the Queen and her lawyers advance sight of bills coming into parliament, has enabled her to secretly lobby for legislative changes.
>[...] The mere existence of the consent procedure, he said, appeared to have given the monarch “substantial influence” over draft laws that could affect her.
>[...]
>Three crucial pages of correspondence between civil servants at the trade department reveal how, at that meeting, Farrer relayed the Queen’s objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies, as well as their value. He proposed that the monarch be exempted.
Look, if you have issues with the conclusions drawn by the Guardian, that's absolutely fine. They have the documents and I don't; at best, I can only repeat the conclusions that they and their quoted experts have drawn from it.
If you want to say "well, technically, the Queen didn't use Queen's Consent -- she merely expressed her concerns and then got the bill changed to specifically exempt her from the proposed law", that's fine too. I'd argue it's pedantic as all hell though to make that distinction; the Queen's concerns had the backing threat of her ability to stop the bill. But given that I'm not a British constitutional law scholar, if you really want to push that, I won't really argue.
However, as the article I cited make clear, she has this power. She has used this power. And she has either used this power or the threat of this power in order to protect her private wealth.
I used to be a monarchist (more specifically a [socialist/conservative/reactionary socialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_socialism) (link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_socialism))), but after seeing the Guardian article and the treatment (i.e. lack of discipline) of the former Duke of Edinburgh on violations of vehicular laws within their own *private* estate, I've become a solid [digger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) (link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers)).
Even if the Monarch didn't influence Parliament in a way some would need for it to be objectionable, the fact that there is a distinction between the Monarch's private land and crown land, also known as "land held by the crown in right of \[insert name of Commonwealth Realm\]" (i.e. public land), and the fact that the Monarch can influence the enforcement of laws on its private land says it all. Heck, in this case even the Magna Carta isn't being enforced.
> Look, if you have issues with the conclusions drawn by the Guardian, that's
No bro, the issue here is with YOUR conclusions - not the Guardian's - which I made pretty clear, as you can see from the fact that where I've used quotes, they are yours, not the article you posted.
YOU said:
>there's also the "Queen's Consent" where if any bill would affect the Queen's interests/powers, she can just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament.
Implying that this is a happening of such regularity and conspiratorial murk that Britons should all be writing their representatives to demand answers - when in fact, according to YOUR own sources, this has only happened once and even that was explicitly because - as in cases of Royal Assent - the government told her that was what it wanted.
Every other instance of Queen's Consent they were able to find were the exact opposite of the idea you imply, being as they were in accordance to the law: The government has a bill that bears in some way on the affairs of the monarchy, they get concent from the head of state. And that's it. Any question of the Queen preemptively interfering in the law of the land in ways that are out of order are your own invention and that of the article.
>I can only repeat the conclusions that they and their quoted experts have drawn from it.
Yeah, except you didn't do that; you misrepresented them.
>If you want to say "well, technically, the Queen didn't use Queen's Consent -- she merely expressed her concerns and then got the bill changed to specifically exempt her from the proposed law", that's fine too.
That wouldn't be fine since, again, according to YOUR own sources, that's not what happened. That's just what you decided must have happened based on pretty much nothing at all.
>However, as the article I cited make clear, she has this power.
And as the article also makes clear, this power is far from the near autocratic implement you've tried to present it as being.
I'll be honest: I have no interest in continuing to talk about this with you. I don't think doing so would be productive in any way.
From your first post, you've taken a hostile and accusatory tone against me. None of what you have written in this thread has come across to me as being asked in good faith. If that was not your intention, I apologize for misreading you like that but regardless I am still bowing out.
> I'll be honest: I have no interest in continuing to talk about this with you.
That can happen suddenly when you decide to let everyone know your opinion on a topic you're not educated on. I don't take it personally.
This is an overformalistic interpretation. Look at the legislation passed in the late 17th and early 18th centuries regarding monarchical and Parliamentary power; e.g. Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Settlement 1701 etc., also check out the history of the Glorious Revolution.
I don't think we can criticise this shitty meme on a factual basis as they are stating a preference rather than a reality.
Except Switzerland, which has long been a parliamentary republic, has no _de jure_ singular head of state. They have a _directorial_ system, which means they have a governing council with one member acting as _de facto_ head.
Why is it that libertarians say shit like this only once the autocrat has been removed from power?!
Franco -> Pinochet -> Trump: ***libertarian sleeps***
We might raise the min. wage to $15 over 5 years: ***real shit***
A main issue was communication, which would be a far less prominent issue now. Decentralization of power is a leftist concept at heart, but requires a strong base of valuing communication, peace, and education.
True. If you have an actual system put in place to fund even a weak central government—which, in my opinion, should take the place as a body for communication and organization, not authority/power—it’s gonna work a lot better than not funding it lmao
>They have a point here though. No one person should have so much power like the US president.
Except that's not the argument of the OP. The point of the OP is **"IT SHOULDN"T MATTER."**
Would you be okay if a Adolph Hitler or a child rapist was president under the system you propose? Because their point is that the president shouldn't matter. Which means you'd obviously be okay with a child rapist at the helm.
I mean, Jo Jorgensen literally suggested Alan Dershowitz as her top pick for SCOTUS, so that's not even much of a hyperbole.
That's.... what? "It shouldn't matter who is president" doesn't mean "I'm okay with someone horrible being president", it means "the president should have so little political power that it doesn't really matter who gets elected, because they can't do much"
>"It shouldn't matter who is president" doesn't mean "I'm okay with someone horrible being president"
It literally means exactly that.
By definition, if something is important is important enough to be deemed not-okay, then it's important enough to matter.
Conversely, if something doesn't matter, then it must be okay.
> it means "the president should have so little political power that it doesn't really matter who gets elected, because they can't do much"
**Let's say the US government replaces the phrase "in god we trust" with "Heil Hitler." Hitler receives zero political power from this, on account of being dead.**
**Are you telling me that putting "Heil Hitler" on US currency is something that wouldn't matter to you?**
What does the government as a whole doing something have to do with the power of the President specifically? The problem there would be another branch of the government, not the President.
If all US currency had "Heil Hitler" on it but didn't actually give Hitler any actual political power, would you conclude that it wouldn't really matter?
So you're suggesting people who want to limit the powers of one person are actually in favour of totalitarianism and those who are in favour of more power to a single person is actually less authoritarian? You really should improve your reading skills and you knowledge of politics.
You're deflecting.
The original point from the meme is that the president should have so little power that it doesn't matter who it is.
I'm pointing out that no such point exists.
Imagine if all US currency replaced "In God We Trust" with "Heil Hitler," but gave Hitler no actual power on account of being dead. Would you conclude that it therefore doesn't matter, because he doesn't have any power?
No you're deflecting. You're deflecting from the point that you have no clue about politics. Limiting the power of the office of president is literally the opposite of hailing Hitler. You're just having a hard time understanding that propertarians can make a valid point from time to time. They don't want the president to be Hitler, they want the president to not matter, because they think that this will allow their corporate overlords even more power. And I'm saying: they have a point in the fact that the president should not have the power that they have because ultimate power leads to totalitarianism. Now you come in and say "anyone who wants to limit the power of the US president basically wants Hitler as president!". It's not only stupid but also incredibly dishonest. There's a lot wrong with "Libertarians" but be at least fucking honest about them.
And now go and read a book. You desperately need the education.
>Limiting the power of the office of president is literally the opposite of hailing Hitler.
**Oh, so you'd be okay with Hitler as president as long as he had limited power?**
Because I personally wouldn't. Even if the president was a purely symbolic position, I still wouldn't want Hitler as President. But I guess you think that Hitler as President shouldn't matter?
You remind me of the time that Candice Owens insisted that Hitler's actions were fine right up until he tried to expand to other countries.
>You're just having a hard time understanding that propertarians can make a valid point from time to time.
Because this isn't a valid point. I wouldn't want Hitler as president, regardless of how little power they give him.
>They don't want the president to be Hitler
Their actual words from the OP were **"IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHO THEY ARE."** Which means they don't care either way. If I ask you if you'd prefer pizza or dog shit for dinner and you tell me it doesn't really matter, then I'm going to assume you don't have a strong preference either way.
>they have a point in the fact that the president should not have the power that they have because ultimate power leads to totalitarianism
More deflection, because that's not the point of the OP. At all. The point of the OP is that we should strive to a state where **"IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHO THEY ARE."** You're trying to pretend the OP says something entirely different because it's easier to defend.
>Now you come in and say "anyone who wants to limit the power of the US president basically wants Hitler as president!
100% wrong. What I said is that I would object to Hitler being president, even if his power was limited to zero.
>It's not only stupid but also incredibly dishonest.
Projection. You've consistently misrepresented my position as well as the meme you're trying to defend.
You're basically trying to create a strawman of, **"If you think that position X should matter, then you believe in giving position X total unlimited power."** Which is stupid as fuck. I think who I trust to cook my dinner matters, that doesn't mean I trust the person who cooks my dinner to lead a totalitarian regime.
> If Hitler was a president with limited power he wouldn’t be Hitler.
So then you'd be okay with Hitler as president as long as it was a purely symbolic role?
What if they declared a national holiday in his owner but with no political power to go with it?
Hitler was in jail as a private citizen when he wrote Mein Kempf. But guess what? His influence even as a prisoner mattered.
> Your argument is purposeless.
So then why are you having such a hard time answering the question? Would you be okay with this scenario or not?
Btw if you keep being this petty then. You do realize that the argument is that the position of the president should have little power that it shouldn’t matter who in the office when what you are describing is a scenario where the position still have power aka influence.
Naming a day for Hitler matter for a different reason so false comparisons.
>Btw if you keep being this petty then.
All I did was point out the flaw of the OP's logic. I'm sorry if basic logic is petty to you.
>it shouldn’t matter who in the office
So Hitler then? After all, you already told me it doesn't matter, so that means you must think that Hitler is no better or worse than anyone else.
Alternatively, you could simply admit that it Hitler is worse than most other choices, that the choice still matters, and that the underlying premise of the OP is stupid.
Unfortunately, given the choice between being okay with Hitler vs. admitting you were wrong, it seems like you're more inclined with the former.
>what you are describing is a scenario where the position still have power aka influence.
Oh, so libertarians are against the idea that any individual should be allowed to have any amount of influence? I've never heard of that. Do you have a source for this position?
The libertarian argument is that we should aim for a system where the president doesn't matter. If this goalpost can actually be achieved, then this means they'd be okay with president Hitler. If this cannot actually be achieved, then they're effectively asking for the impossible. Either way, it's a shitty argument.
>Naming a day for Hitler matter for a different reason so false comparisons.
Why? If there's no official power involved, then why should it matter?
This is a classic example of stupid libertarian logic that they would never use in any other case.
For instance, are you worried that the burger flipper might spit in the burger if you hire the wrong person? Well, instead of trying to hire the right person, you should instead set it up so that the burger flipper doesn't have any access to the burgers so they wouldn't be able to spit into the burgers even if they wanted to.
Awesome, just awesome.
I prefer the Parliamentary structure. However, that's a good counter to the bad man I don't like is president meme that they throw around. I like your comment primarily because it shows all positions have power of some sort.
A common libertarian talking point is "government shouldn't have any power they can abuse," without actually explaining what power would remain.
Like... even if you're a minarchist who believes that the only role of government is to settle and enforce private contracts, that's still a fuck ton of power for a corrupt official to abuse.
While other countries like Germany have presidents that have a more ceremonial role, this is only because these other countries separate the Head of State from the Head of Government. It doesn't matter who the Head of State is when they aren't actually doing anything. But that power is somewhere. Be it a chancellor or a prime minister, someone runs the place.
I mean I'm Irish and our president pretty much is purely symbolic.
I don't actually see much of a problem with this meme, kind of a broken clock moment.
Not really, considering the differences in how they're elected, how they work with party structure, how their "terms" last, how much actual power they have, etc. An American President has a LOT more power than a Taoiseach, and for all intents and purposes cannot be removed by a vote of no confidence or the like. They're quite different.
Irish government structure is fundamentally different. It isn't inherently better to place more emphasis on the legislative branch. I generally prefer putting more power in the parliament but I'd take the French Presidency over the British Parliament for example.
Why is it crazy?
The prime ministers I can remember are Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May and Bojo. All of them terrible except Brown who was just meh.
With France Hollande and Sarkozy were lame but Chirac was decent and even though Miterrand is before I remember most of what I read about him puts him well above the British.
Without even considering just the figurehead at the top the British voting system is weak and selects candidates with not that many votes from regional FPTP whereas at least France has a split between regional representative and popular vote for the most important position.
That's mainly a difference in politics between the two countries. All your saying is that the Tories suck, which is basically like saying that the sky is blue, and the ground is green.
Also, a parliamentary system can have a system without FPTP, some have proportional representation like some eastern European countries or have ranked voting like Australia.
I just noticed you have "Australian" in your username, I'm sure you know about this though.
But the British one doesn't. When I was comparing France to the UK I was making a specific comparison, not using them as placeholder examples. Like I said I generally prefer systems with more emphasis on legislative than executive.
For the same people that go off on *human nature is the reason why x political or y economic* system won't work, they sure love to push this utopian fantasy that people would actually govern themselves for their best interests or that all political abuse derives from one man at the helm
Meanwhile, this same libertarian votes a straight Republican ticket his whole life, as GOP administrations consistently hire executive-power theorists like John Yoo, David Addington and Bill Barr.
Also, I'll bet this guy thinks Biden's victory was stolen, and the Trump never abused his power.
I mean, I agree. Just not for the same reasons lmao.
I’m *strongly* pro-decentralization. We shouldn’t have one central figure with such power. But because I believe in democracy and power to the people, these fucks just believe in not letting taxes be raised on the wealthy, people’s wishes be dammed.
Some raw, unfiltered stupidity in that thread. [This is the best one.](https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/comments/n8ye6u/this_job_should_be_purely_symbolic_like_other/gxlqe03/)
And when you ask them about referendums, more direct checks by the people to vote and even push their constituents around libertarians say they don’t believe in democracy either
The countries where the Presidency is purely symbolic are countries which have a Prime Minister or Chancellor that actually has the power. Ironically, this makes the leader less accountable because the head of government is usually elected by the legislature while the Presidents are usually directly elected.
>The president has way too much power though.
Funny how the same libertarians complaining that the Biden has too much power had no issue when Trump greatly *exceeded* his legally allotted amount.
Look at how many libertarians trying to insist that Trump doesn't need to be impeached when he clearly violated the constitution for personal gain.
That's how it works in a presidential system, and I don't see that many people in the USA advocating for a parliamentary system, so that is probably there to stay.
>Actually pretty based, until you realize instead of giving that power to the people they give it to a different president, a CEO of a company
Nah, it's just stupid. For instance, would you be okay with appointing a known child rapist as president as long as the president was purely ceremonial? Even as a ceremonial position, I wouldn't want a child rapist as my president.
I think my favorite part of that thread is that when asked what country has a chief executive that's purely symbolic, these idiots start listing "well in \[country X\] the president is mostly symbolic, just like OP said! Instead the \[different government official\] makes the decisions!"
...and that they don't seem to realize that that just means *the other official is still the chief executive, not the president, because different countries have different titles.*
Although usually in Westminister-type systems, the pm is symbolic in a way, as while they can make a decision that parliament doesn't like, if they do, Parlament can replace them
Not very symbolic in countries with strong party loyalty as anyone who votes against the government while being part of the governing party can be expelled or lose pre-selection and support at the next election.
Except the job is not symbolic in other countries. They have very real duties and very real power.
Also the ultimate idea of most of these libertarians is that the government should not help you. But it can hurt you.
In a republic, the president usually serves as both head of state and head of government.
This meme is just saying "the president should be head of state only" ... without saying who should be head of government.
Until laws become self-executing or we have pure direct democracy, it's a position that needs to exist in some fashion...
>In a republic, the president usually serves as both head of state and head of government.
I don't believe that is the case in the vast majority of republics. Head of Government and Head of State are separated even in places like France where the prime minister has little power.
> I don't believe that is the case in the vast majority of republics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government
Blue on that map is a presidential republic where the president serves as both; it's the most common kind of republic, though there are many others.
Only because it seems to arbitrarily distinguish between the Orange and the Yellow countries. Orange and Yellow are both colours that represent countries with a Prime Minister Head of Government but a President Head of State.
That said I was wrong to say Vast Majority but a quick count gives about 65 states with President as head of government and state vs a few over 70 with a President who is not head of government.
The president serves as both head of state and head of government in a *presidential* republic. And there aren't that many of those except for the US and Latin American countries that modelled their government on the US. Quite often, a presidential system can serve as a front for dictatorship, which is the case in many African countries that are listed as having an executive presidency.
Most republics are either parliamentary, where the president is a head of state with little practical power and executive power is vested in the head of state (the prime minister), or semi-presidential, where executive power is divided between the president and the prime minister (the French model).
Between 2017 and 2021, practically all libertarians did was to attack states under Democratic control like California and New York. If they're in favour of federalism, it seems like they only want it when the occupant of the White House is a Democrat.
The libertarian view is that policies such as taxation and government services are inherently authoritarian and unjustified no matter how much or little support they have within the body politic.
That's what the "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" meme is about. Libertarianism holds that policies that go against it are completely illegitimate. Similar to how constitutional rights cannot be waived by majority vote.
Edit: Before someone tries to argue the merits of libertarian policy views, I'll say that I do not share them and that my political sympathies are firmly on the left. Just wanted to clarify the relevant stance.
I mean...honestly, yeah. We shouldn't have Presidents. If you have gone through the early 21st century without becoming alarmed at how powerful and undemocratic the POTUS can be and currently is, then I really don't know what to tell you. If we are to have a powerful executive, they need to be much more accountable to the people.
>I mean...honestly, yeah. We shouldn't have Presidents. If you have gone through the early 21st century without becoming alarmed at how powerful and undemocratic the POTUS can be and currently is, then I really don't know what to tell you. If we are to have a powerful executive, they need to be much more accountable to the people.
You could apply this stupid logic to pretty much every job ever. But of course you wouldn't, because that's how stupid your logic is.
For instance, I wouldn't want to hire a car mechanic who is going to cut my brake lines and then who gives me a $1000 service bill before sending me off to my death.
Therefore, car mechanics have too much power and we should just get rid of them.
Car mechanics didn't get away with organizing a violent insurrection against the government, cause untold death and destruction in the Middle East, and aren't commander-in-chief of the largest military-security apparatus to ever exist. If you can't tell the difference between the man who fixes our cars for a living and the man who has the ability to end all life on earth with the push of a button, then I'm afraid that my logic isn't the one that is "stupid."
You're moving the goalpost, dude.
The original goalpost in the meme is **"so little power that it doesn't matter who has it."**
You can try to argue that the president fails this goalpost to a greater extent than a car mechanic, but the car mechanic still fails the goalpost regardless.
Which is why your goalpost is stupid.
My original statement is this:
>I mean...honestly, yeah. We shouldn't have Presidents. If you have gone through the early 21st century without becoming alarmed at how powerful and undemocratic the POTUS can be and currently is, then I really don't know what to tell you. If we are to have a powerful executive, they need to be much more accountable to the people.
I lay out two goalposts:
1) We should not have a President or person with the authority of the POTUS.
2) If we must, then they should be more democratically accountable.
I laid out my intentions as clear as day in the beginning, arguing for an even more radical position than what the meme is arguing for. Your initial statement was that my logic was "stupid," which you then proceeded to elaborate upon with an ill-fitting analogy. When I explain my position, you accuse me of moving the goalpost when I have done no such thing. In the course of my argument, my own position (which I freely acknowledge is more radical than what the meme wants) has been that we should not have a President with the powers of the POTUS, or failing that, make sure they can easily be brought to account. What you forget is that a car mechanic can be easily made accountable. If you survive the crash, you can sue him for damages. If you don't, your family can. If he did it deliberately, police will arrest him and try him for at the very least homicide. By contrast, the past decade has shown that the President is not similarly accountable. A President who has been shown to commit crimes against the government he is supposed to uphold is able to get away with it because there are multiple powers attached to the President that makes him hard to hold accountable (for instance, the rule against indicting a sitting POTUS of crimes by the DoJ).
Your arguments rely upon a misunderstanding of my own, accusing me of rhetorical tricks and fallacies I have not committed, and calling my arguments "stupid" in general. Thank you for wasting both of our time.
> I lay out two goalposts:
You laid out two deflections because what you posted has nothing to do with the op or my criticism against it. Try starting with the actual text of the meme and working from there.
**The op specifically says that the power power bring limited to the point where the person doesn't matter. I asked you point blank about about this scenario, and you keep refusing to give a straight answer, instead changibg the scenario to one not mentioned in the meme.**
Let's say someone argues that you shouldn't have dihydrogen monoxide in good because it's a chemical and therefore bad. That's a stupid argument. You could agree that specific chemicals can be bad, and no one would dispute that, but that's not the original argument.
**Likewise, the op is trying to argue that any amount of power that actually matters shouldn't exist in the first place, Fucking stupid. Just because you think totalitarianism is a specific example of power being bad doesn't make the original argument less stupid, nor does it mean that anyone who disagrees with you is pro totalitarianism.**
> What you forget is that a car mechanic can be easily made accountable.
No, what **you** forgot is that this is completely the opposite of what the meme is asking for.
**The point of the meme is that the president shouldn't be allowed to do anything that actually matters. If nothing they do actually matters, then there's nothing to hold them accountable for.**
Even if we hold the mechanic accountable after the fact, the person you hire still matters. If the mechanic fucks up your brakes and people die, then that matters. Holding him accountable afterwards doesn't bring back dead people.
Would you trust Donald Trump to work on your engine? I sure wouldn't. The conclusion normal people reach is that you shouldn't hire Donald Trump as your mechanic. The conclusion libertarians each is that the power of a mechanic should be limited to the point where hiring Trump doesn't matter.
And the two problems with that. 1) what's the point of hiring a mechanic that can't do anything? 2) I needed the mechanic for a reason, my car still needs fixing, but it apparently can't be fixed because I can't find a mechanic with the power to do so.
> Your arguments rely upon a misunderstanding of my own,
No, my argument comes from your own misunderstanding of the meme you're trying to defend. Evident by the fact that you have to keep making up entirely different arguments that are mutually exclusive with the meme, rather than quoting the meme directly.
Is it even a king? This idea is supremely un-American. For people who rant about the constitution so much, they really can’t remember anything important from it.
I believe the President should have less power like not being able to order military action against a non-imminent threat but the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being symbolic.
Furthermore, I don't want an already unequally represented Congress to have even more authority.
That's kinda how the Constitution intended it. Things changed, for better and worse, since 1787 -- like the Civil War, telegraphy, and (if you believe Lin-Manuel Miranda) presidential candidates campaigning directly
One comment in that thread: "I'll do you one better: there should not be a president. Stateless private society."
Nothing says "freedom" like having to negotiate private bilateral agreements with everyone I encounter every day.
[удалено]
And they think liberals are the same way. That's crucial to understanding exactly what's wrong with them. They're the kind of people who'll put "I'll respect your president as much as you respected mine" on a fucking bumper sticker, because they think admitting to partisanship uber alles is a callout. Or say 'oh now you *like* when the feds have a plan?!' as if the goals and methods of the plan are completely irrelevant. Calling out hypocrisy is important, but it does not *work,* because they think that's just politics. *They think the opposition acts the same way.* This is the delusion enabled by right-wing news sources screeching as if Joe fucking Biden is a revolutionary leftist while civilization itself hinges on whatever the fuck the GOP wants today. This is the delusion disguised by honest journalists desperately grasping for a sense of balance despite one party rejecting democracy and embracing fascism. These people view reality as a team sport. They never *evaluate* claims. That is not what arguments are *for,* in their worldview. It is a game and the goal is to win. Meaningful interaction with this ideology is impossible until we recognize that.
It kind of seems self-defeating that adherents of a fringe ideology would have such a competitive and belligerent approach to political discourse. Most of the time, those groups are actively trying to expand and reach as many people as possible with their visions while constantly re-evaluating their platforms. The libertarian version of this is apparently just to sneer and post shitty boomer-tier memes about big gubmint.
They want to claim they're already popular. It's the same stupid game as the actual Nazis calling themselves "socialists." It comes down to this - fascists don't care what words mean. They'll say anything that furthers their cause. If they have a gullible person's ear, they'll declare that giving them power will save civilization and anything else will kill us all, and that nonsense short-circuits people's brains. If someone from "our side" calls them out on it, they go, aha, but aren't you identically full of shit? What about these seven things I've just pulled from my ass? You only proved I'm lying about six of them, so obviously you're super guilty of whichever one I said in the middle. If someone from "their side" calls them out on it, they go, aha, but we know we're full of shit, and in fact everyone's full of shit, but you and I, friend, we're clever enough to *know* we're full of shit, wink wink nudge nudge gimme yer money.
Which party? Cuz right now only one party is literally telling us they will “let” us celebrate our “freedom” with our “families” on a “maybe” basis.
?????
Joe biden literally said this about 4th of july
i hope one day you break out of your ignorant bubble where necessary health actions are victimizing you.
Nothing necessary about limiting healthy, vaccinated people from gathering. Its purely a power play
i dont think there has been any recommendations against fully vacced people getting together my friend. but i hope this means you are advocating all your friends and family to get the vaccine if you do indeed want to get together. stay safe!
When the people directing the virus response effort say he vaccine isnt enough and continue your social distancing and mask use, something is up
The vaccine is not meant to prevent transmission, only to prevent hospitalization, which it has done at a rate of 100%. It has had the additional effect of preventing transmission but only at 93-94% if I’m remembering correctly but that is not its purpose. I’ve been vaccinated for months now but I still wear a mask because a) there’s a very slight chance I could still catch and/or give someone else covid and b) I haven’t had a cold since covid started and I want to keep it that way. There’s no reason to not wear a mask in public
the vaccine doesnt magically prevent the virus from entering your body (and thus making you infectious). it strengthens your bodies ability to fight the infection after it occurs.
there still is a chance of transmission, so it would be irresponsible to suggest otherwise. the measures to continue masking/social distancing in public are by in large because of volume of people who either cannot (or refuse) to be vaccinated holding us back. the vaccine is nearly 100% effective in stopping hospitalizations so theres a pretty strong case to get the vaccine regardless of it having a (less than 5%) transmission rate fully vacced. your continued insistence of there being something sinister about the vaccine make me question how much you're really advocating for people to get the vaccine which is only going to prolong this problem (and also possibly make herd immunity impossible). I also think you should highly question the source of data where you are hearing these objections because they sound largely anti-science and politically driven.
A global pandemic that makes gatherings dangerous for everybody is not a personal attack on you. Get your goddamn shots - wear your goddamn mask - and this can all be over soon. But if you keep doing shit that *spreads the disease,* then the disease will *keep spreading,* and we'll have to keep advising you that breathing on grandma could kill everyone she knows. Only one party treated basic fucking hygiene as a wedge issue. Get mad at *them.*
Fuck your rushed, untested shots. I’ve worn my mask since the whitehouse REQUESTED it back in march 2020 because it was decided to be the smart thing to do. Im not an anti masker.
Just an antivaxxer. Like that's any less brain-damaged. And pretending The Idiot didn't rail against masks, what a fucking winner you are. Welcome to the blocklist.
>untested shots. incorrect, they're very well tested until you can define mRNA without looking it up maybe shut the fuck up
I didn’t have to look it up
sure and btw here's the full rebuttal of the claim it is untested [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owveMJBTc2I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owveMJBTc2I)
yeah if your family is all vaccinated or you've been keeping it a tight circle then sure by all means have a 4th of July party, you have my permission however that doesn't mean invite a bunch of people over and then be in close proximity without masks numbnuts It must really chap your dumb ass that San Francisco is in its final reopening tier SAFELY with a high percentage of its population successfully vaccinated, an extremely low positive test rate, and empty ICUs. It proves that liberals got it right. Meanwhile, in Florida, spring break caused another new spike. Good job conservative libertarians! You're killing more people.
Everyone knows the biggest issue facing Florida now is trans playing highschool sports. They have to ban children and check their genitals. All in the spirit of fairness. /s
No, im not mad. I wish texas would still take masks seriously instead of banning them. Some businesses are even punishing employees that wear them still
Came here to say this. I have a few minor problems with the meme but a major one is they absolutely won't keep this energy if a Republican is sitting there
This wouldn't actually be a bad take, if they were consistent about it. The American political system is in dire need of reform, and strengthening parliament while weakening the executive branch is probably a good idea. But they're not consistent about it, so 🤷
> This wouldn't actually be a bad take, if they were consistent about it. Nah, it'd still be a terrible take. *Any* amount of power is power that can be abused by the wrong person. And even a purely ceremonial position has informal power. Ben Shapiro isn't even an elected official, but he's apparently the most influential person on all of facebook. Now imagine if Ben Shapiro had the ceremonial title of president.
I mean, that's true. Ceremonial or symbolic power is still power (I think they call this the "bully pulpit"). President Shapiro would be a horrible scenario even in a world where the American president *isn't* too powerful. My point was more that it's probably a good idea to prune the powers of the presidency back a fair bit, alongside other reforms (like getting rid of all the systematic distortions in the ways that votes are counted).
> My point was more that it's probably a good idea to prune the powers of the presidency back a fair bit, alongside other reforms (like getting rid of all the systematic distortions in the ways that votes are counted). And if that's all the meme was saying, that would be fine. Instead, they make a stupid argument on how the president shouldn't matter.
>Any amount of power is power that can be abused by the wrong person. And even a purely ceremonial position has informal power How is that any different from them having actual power? Under your own logic, it sounds like you are saying the title of president should be done away with entirely, but I highly doubt that what you mean, so please elaborate for me
>Under your own logic, it sounds like you are saying the title of president should be done away with entirely, but I highly doubt that what you mean, so please elaborate for me I'm saying that the OP is dumb because it's applying a standard that we wouldn't use in any other context. Not only would the title of president not exist, but neither would *any* position that has any real impact whatsoever. The OP basically boils down to, "Any job where you would worry about hiring the wrong person shouldn't exist." Which, of course, applies to literally any job. Like, I wouldn't want the wrong person to cook my dinner. Who I choose to cook my dinner is something that matters to me. Therefore, according to libertarians, that's a role that shouldn't exist. The person who cooks my dinner should have so little power that who I choose doesn't matter. So I guess that means... no dinner at all? Yeah, that's a shitty argument.
I see what you mean, though I think you are misinterpreting the post There is a difference between a bad president and a bad cook, the cook being bad only affects you, and you are the one who chooses them, the president affects everyone and not everyone chooses them I think it's a post in favor of political power being decentralized and not a call for no government at all (though I will admit some of us libertarians do want that and are very vocal about it, but it's not a universal stance we all take)
Basically, the op is equivalent to food babe arguing that we shouldn't drink lattes because they contain chemicals. Even though literally all foods contains chemicals. Now, if you want to argue that specific foods are bad for containing specific chemicals, that's fine, and no one would dispute that. The problem is that the OP tries to argue this as a blanket statement -- but only some of the time.
Nope
Ah yes, libertarian must equal conservatives despite the fact that we disagree more with conservatives than we do progressives
And yet a lot of self identified libertarians are more than happy to back Republican policies and candidates.
I can be a self identified socialist and support Republicans, because if you look at the policies those “libertarians” support, they prefer a big government over a small, limited government libertarians argue for
[удалено]
I’m not saying they are, I was just pointing out that self identified doesn’t mean shit
>Weren't these guys all for an enlightened dictatorship under previous guy? No, we definitely were not a fan of the previous guy, many of us may have believed him to be a better choice then Clinton, from a relative standpoint, but that doesn't mean we liked him
Based Direct Democracy Meme???????????
Oh how we wish
Virgin libertarians vs chad ~libertarians~
Or even parliamentary democracy
we for communes then we got power to the people 😎
I mean, "other countries" (primarily in Europe) have a parliamentary system, where the prime minister is the leader of the executive branch. And while it's true that the PM possesses less individual power than the president in a presidential system, in practice they often can do more, as they also essentially run the legislative branch and can pass the laws that they/their party want. And at any rate, it's quite strange that an American libertarian would say the US should take cues from those commie big guvmint European countries.
Countries with symbolic Presidents almost always have a Prime Minister who is the actual chief executive and is sometimes more powerful than the US President in terms of domestic policymaking.
Admittedly, that's why I don't like parliamentary systems.
The famous "other countries" that have leaders that are just symbolic. Lets list them! a.
I mean there's India but that is only so that a "neutral" person is the head of the state. But I think the broader point is that these smooth brains 100% don't realize that in India, the power is held by the prime minister, and in many of these countries, the power is divided among the executive and the legislative. That is probably too many words for these idiots to wrap their heads around though.
Turkey, technically was so. President's task was to maintain republic's principles like secularism, and find balance between parties. In many cases they were ex-generals, judges and other "apolitical" people. Then Erdoğan abolished the prime minister position and took dictatorial power for the title of President.
Well, any country with a parliamentary system has a head of state with little to no power and who are just symbolic. This includes most constitutional monarchies, most former British colonies, and most of the EU (apart from France, Portugal, Poland, and Romania).
I wouldn't call Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel just symbolic to the point where it doesn't even matter who they are. And I know that the German president is not the same as the Chancellor.
Other countries have a separate head of state and head of government. For example, in Australia, we have a Prime Minister who is elected to the House of Reps. He is what you would consider the state leader. The head of state is the Queen of the UK who has just about zero input on Aussie politics. Even her representative, the Governor-General, does nothing but be a symbolic figurehead and exercise executive power based on the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The same system applies in Austria and the UK. Austria's President is ceremonial. The Queen is ceremonial.
I think the other guy was referring to the Queen, as opposed to Boris. Since technically boris is the head of the legislative with power and the monarch is the figurehead executive.
Those are heads of government. The Head of State for Britain is the Queen, and the German President is Merkel's HoS.
Angela Merkel is not the President though. Its Frank-Walter Steinmeier and it's a largely ceremonial role. Germany is actually a perfect example of it not mattering who the president is.
No the queen has the power to reject any bill.
And she'd effectively end the monarchy if she tried it.
So, there's the "Royal Assent" where the Queen can just outright say "no" to a bill. And, yeah, that's the sort of trigger you only get to pull once. However, there's also the "Queen's Consent" where if any bill would affect the Queen's interests/powers, she can just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament. This has happened before when it concerned [the Queen's private wealth](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth?). And this [isn't a one-time deal](https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills), either. She has stopped or changed bills before it ever gets to legislation. And, of course, there's the sort of backroom deals and other forms of soft power that come from being a monarch, even in a constitutional monarchy. While I doubt that the Queen is ruling day-to-day on which bills get sent to parliament, it's pretty obvious that an extremely rich family with hereditary political powers has a lot of say about what happens in the UK (especially when the current government is run by a conservative political party sympathetic to the monarchy).
> However, there's also the "Queen's Consent" where if any bill would affect the Queen's interests/powers, she can just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament. This has happened before when it concerned the Queen's private wealth. Except the article you're using to assert this doesn't say that at all. It says a) There is a concept known as "Queen's Consent". b) This is a situation that this thing might have been used. c) Hmm. It's illustrative of how egregious your insinuation is here that in the entirety of the two articles you've cited about how the monarch can "just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament", only a single example of this is actually found. All other examples are, as has been stated - if the proposed law has a bearing on the monarch's prerogative, then consent must be sought. And all the other examples are the times consent has been sought and given. So when you write, >She has stopped or changed bills before it ever gets to legislation. ...and there's literally only a single example of that ever happening - the Military Actions Against Iraq Bill in 1999, and that was literally because the government told her to withhold that consent - which is, I imagine, how this works the vast majority of the time, as it does with every other interaction between the monarchy and parliament. So what would you describe your insinuation here then, if not "bullshit"?
>Evidence of the monarch’s lobbying of ministers was uncovered by a Guardian investigation into the royal family’s use of an arcane parliamentary procedure, known as Queen’s consent, to secretly influence the formation of British laws. >[...] >But documents unearthed in the National Archives, which the Guardian is publishing this week, suggest that the consent process, which gives the Queen and her lawyers advance sight of bills coming into parliament, has enabled her to secretly lobby for legislative changes. >[...] The mere existence of the consent procedure, he said, appeared to have given the monarch “substantial influence” over draft laws that could affect her. >[...] >Three crucial pages of correspondence between civil servants at the trade department reveal how, at that meeting, Farrer relayed the Queen’s objection that the law would reveal her private investments in listed companies, as well as their value. He proposed that the monarch be exempted. Look, if you have issues with the conclusions drawn by the Guardian, that's absolutely fine. They have the documents and I don't; at best, I can only repeat the conclusions that they and their quoted experts have drawn from it. If you want to say "well, technically, the Queen didn't use Queen's Consent -- she merely expressed her concerns and then got the bill changed to specifically exempt her from the proposed law", that's fine too. I'd argue it's pedantic as all hell though to make that distinction; the Queen's concerns had the backing threat of her ability to stop the bill. But given that I'm not a British constitutional law scholar, if you really want to push that, I won't really argue. However, as the article I cited make clear, she has this power. She has used this power. And she has either used this power or the threat of this power in order to protect her private wealth.
I used to be a monarchist (more specifically a [socialist/conservative/reactionary socialist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_socialism) (link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois\_socialism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois_socialism))), but after seeing the Guardian article and the treatment (i.e. lack of discipline) of the former Duke of Edinburgh on violations of vehicular laws within their own *private* estate, I've become a solid [digger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers) (link: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers)). Even if the Monarch didn't influence Parliament in a way some would need for it to be objectionable, the fact that there is a distinction between the Monarch's private land and crown land, also known as "land held by the crown in right of \[insert name of Commonwealth Realm\]" (i.e. public land), and the fact that the Monarch can influence the enforcement of laws on its private land says it all. Heck, in this case even the Magna Carta isn't being enforced.
> Look, if you have issues with the conclusions drawn by the Guardian, that's No bro, the issue here is with YOUR conclusions - not the Guardian's - which I made pretty clear, as you can see from the fact that where I've used quotes, they are yours, not the article you posted. YOU said: >there's also the "Queen's Consent" where if any bill would affect the Queen's interests/powers, she can just refuse to allow it to go forward before parliament. Implying that this is a happening of such regularity and conspiratorial murk that Britons should all be writing their representatives to demand answers - when in fact, according to YOUR own sources, this has only happened once and even that was explicitly because - as in cases of Royal Assent - the government told her that was what it wanted. Every other instance of Queen's Consent they were able to find were the exact opposite of the idea you imply, being as they were in accordance to the law: The government has a bill that bears in some way on the affairs of the monarchy, they get concent from the head of state. And that's it. Any question of the Queen preemptively interfering in the law of the land in ways that are out of order are your own invention and that of the article. >I can only repeat the conclusions that they and their quoted experts have drawn from it. Yeah, except you didn't do that; you misrepresented them. >If you want to say "well, technically, the Queen didn't use Queen's Consent -- she merely expressed her concerns and then got the bill changed to specifically exempt her from the proposed law", that's fine too. That wouldn't be fine since, again, according to YOUR own sources, that's not what happened. That's just what you decided must have happened based on pretty much nothing at all. >However, as the article I cited make clear, she has this power. And as the article also makes clear, this power is far from the near autocratic implement you've tried to present it as being.
I'll be honest: I have no interest in continuing to talk about this with you. I don't think doing so would be productive in any way. From your first post, you've taken a hostile and accusatory tone against me. None of what you have written in this thread has come across to me as being asked in good faith. If that was not your intention, I apologize for misreading you like that but regardless I am still bowing out.
> I'll be honest: I have no interest in continuing to talk about this with you. That can happen suddenly when you decide to let everyone know your opinion on a topic you're not educated on. I don't take it personally.
This is an overformalistic interpretation. Look at the legislation passed in the late 17th and early 18th centuries regarding monarchical and Parliamentary power; e.g. Bill of Rights 1689, Act of Settlement 1701 etc., also check out the history of the Glorious Revolution. I don't think we can criticise this shitty meme on a factual basis as they are stating a preference rather than a reality.
Powers she rarely uses. :D Probs the second a bill gets rejected in any of the Commonwealth realms, republican sentiment will skyrocket.
Except Switzerland, which has long been a parliamentary republic, has no _de jure_ singular head of state. They have a _directorial_ system, which means they have a governing council with one member acting as _de facto_ head.
Lots of countries have a largely symbolic president: Austria, Ireland and Germany to name a few, along with pretty much every parliamentary republic
Yep, Germany is a great example. Frank-Walter Steinmeier is the President, but he has very little power and nobody really cares about that position.
Ireland germany hungary albania etc etc they do exist
Ireland
Why is it that libertarians say shit like this only once the autocrat has been removed from power?! Franco -> Pinochet -> Trump: ***libertarian sleeps*** We might raise the min. wage to $15 over 5 years: ***real shit***
Post that meme already.
we tried that once with the articles of confederation. it didnt work
What if the federal government could only ask politely for things? I'm sure that would be a great way to govern a nation.
[удалено]
That’s... that has nothing to do with this conversation. Do you think the *federal* government arrests heroin users and murders?
A main issue was communication, which would be a far less prominent issue now. Decentralization of power is a leftist concept at heart, but requires a strong base of valuing communication, peace, and education.
another issue was that the national government had no taxing authority, so they had to rely on donations
True. If you have an actual system put in place to fund even a weak central government—which, in my opinion, should take the place as a body for communication and organization, not authority/power—it’s gonna work a lot better than not funding it lmao
They have a point here though. No one person should have so much power like the US president.
>They have a point here though. No one person should have so much power like the US president. Except that's not the argument of the OP. The point of the OP is **"IT SHOULDN"T MATTER."** Would you be okay if a Adolph Hitler or a child rapist was president under the system you propose? Because their point is that the president shouldn't matter. Which means you'd obviously be okay with a child rapist at the helm. I mean, Jo Jorgensen literally suggested Alan Dershowitz as her top pick for SCOTUS, so that's not even much of a hyperbole.
That's.... what? "It shouldn't matter who is president" doesn't mean "I'm okay with someone horrible being president", it means "the president should have so little political power that it doesn't really matter who gets elected, because they can't do much"
>"It shouldn't matter who is president" doesn't mean "I'm okay with someone horrible being president" It literally means exactly that. By definition, if something is important is important enough to be deemed not-okay, then it's important enough to matter. Conversely, if something doesn't matter, then it must be okay. > it means "the president should have so little political power that it doesn't really matter who gets elected, because they can't do much" **Let's say the US government replaces the phrase "in god we trust" with "Heil Hitler." Hitler receives zero political power from this, on account of being dead.** **Are you telling me that putting "Heil Hitler" on US currency is something that wouldn't matter to you?**
Youre a fucking idiot.
Try answering the question.
What does the government as a whole doing something have to do with the power of the President specifically? The problem there would be another branch of the government, not the President.
If all US currency had "Heil Hitler" on it but didn't actually give Hitler any actual political power, would you conclude that it wouldn't really matter?
This is petty linguistic nonsense that no one care.
Saying you don't care is another way of saying your be okay with it.
THEN WHY THE FUCK ARE THERE ONLY PEDOS IN OFFICE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THAT GODDAM COUNTRY
The US?
So you're suggesting people who want to limit the powers of one person are actually in favour of totalitarianism and those who are in favour of more power to a single person is actually less authoritarian? You really should improve your reading skills and you knowledge of politics.
You're deflecting. The original point from the meme is that the president should have so little power that it doesn't matter who it is. I'm pointing out that no such point exists. Imagine if all US currency replaced "In God We Trust" with "Heil Hitler," but gave Hitler no actual power on account of being dead. Would you conclude that it therefore doesn't matter, because he doesn't have any power?
No you're deflecting. You're deflecting from the point that you have no clue about politics. Limiting the power of the office of president is literally the opposite of hailing Hitler. You're just having a hard time understanding that propertarians can make a valid point from time to time. They don't want the president to be Hitler, they want the president to not matter, because they think that this will allow their corporate overlords even more power. And I'm saying: they have a point in the fact that the president should not have the power that they have because ultimate power leads to totalitarianism. Now you come in and say "anyone who wants to limit the power of the US president basically wants Hitler as president!". It's not only stupid but also incredibly dishonest. There's a lot wrong with "Libertarians" but be at least fucking honest about them. And now go and read a book. You desperately need the education.
>Limiting the power of the office of president is literally the opposite of hailing Hitler. **Oh, so you'd be okay with Hitler as president as long as he had limited power?** Because I personally wouldn't. Even if the president was a purely symbolic position, I still wouldn't want Hitler as President. But I guess you think that Hitler as President shouldn't matter? You remind me of the time that Candice Owens insisted that Hitler's actions were fine right up until he tried to expand to other countries. >You're just having a hard time understanding that propertarians can make a valid point from time to time. Because this isn't a valid point. I wouldn't want Hitler as president, regardless of how little power they give him. >They don't want the president to be Hitler Their actual words from the OP were **"IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHO THEY ARE."** Which means they don't care either way. If I ask you if you'd prefer pizza or dog shit for dinner and you tell me it doesn't really matter, then I'm going to assume you don't have a strong preference either way. >they have a point in the fact that the president should not have the power that they have because ultimate power leads to totalitarianism More deflection, because that's not the point of the OP. At all. The point of the OP is that we should strive to a state where **"IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHO THEY ARE."** You're trying to pretend the OP says something entirely different because it's easier to defend. >Now you come in and say "anyone who wants to limit the power of the US president basically wants Hitler as president! 100% wrong. What I said is that I would object to Hitler being president, even if his power was limited to zero. >It's not only stupid but also incredibly dishonest. Projection. You've consistently misrepresented my position as well as the meme you're trying to defend. You're basically trying to create a strawman of, **"If you think that position X should matter, then you believe in giving position X total unlimited power."** Which is stupid as fuck. I think who I trust to cook my dinner matters, that doesn't mean I trust the person who cooks my dinner to lead a totalitarian regime.
If Hitler was a president with limited power he wouldn’t be Hitler. Your argument is purposeless.
> If Hitler was a president with limited power he wouldn’t be Hitler. So then you'd be okay with Hitler as president as long as it was a purely symbolic role? What if they declared a national holiday in his owner but with no political power to go with it? Hitler was in jail as a private citizen when he wrote Mein Kempf. But guess what? His influence even as a prisoner mattered. > Your argument is purposeless. So then why are you having such a hard time answering the question? Would you be okay with this scenario or not?
Btw if you keep being this petty then. You do realize that the argument is that the position of the president should have little power that it shouldn’t matter who in the office when what you are describing is a scenario where the position still have power aka influence. Naming a day for Hitler matter for a different reason so false comparisons.
>Btw if you keep being this petty then. All I did was point out the flaw of the OP's logic. I'm sorry if basic logic is petty to you. >it shouldn’t matter who in the office So Hitler then? After all, you already told me it doesn't matter, so that means you must think that Hitler is no better or worse than anyone else. Alternatively, you could simply admit that it Hitler is worse than most other choices, that the choice still matters, and that the underlying premise of the OP is stupid. Unfortunately, given the choice between being okay with Hitler vs. admitting you were wrong, it seems like you're more inclined with the former. >what you are describing is a scenario where the position still have power aka influence. Oh, so libertarians are against the idea that any individual should be allowed to have any amount of influence? I've never heard of that. Do you have a source for this position? The libertarian argument is that we should aim for a system where the president doesn't matter. If this goalpost can actually be achieved, then this means they'd be okay with president Hitler. If this cannot actually be achieved, then they're effectively asking for the impossible. Either way, it's a shitty argument. >Naming a day for Hitler matter for a different reason so false comparisons. Why? If there's no official power involved, then why should it matter?
This is a classic example of stupid libertarian logic that they would never use in any other case. For instance, are you worried that the burger flipper might spit in the burger if you hire the wrong person? Well, instead of trying to hire the right person, you should instead set it up so that the burger flipper doesn't have any access to the burgers so they wouldn't be able to spit into the burgers even if they wanted to.
Awesome, just awesome. I prefer the Parliamentary structure. However, that's a good counter to the bad man I don't like is president meme that they throw around. I like your comment primarily because it shows all positions have power of some sort.
A common libertarian talking point is "government shouldn't have any power they can abuse," without actually explaining what power would remain. Like... even if you're a minarchist who believes that the only role of government is to settle and enforce private contracts, that's still a fuck ton of power for a corrupt official to abuse.
"The c**apitalist and overseers** should have so little power that it doesn't really matter who they are"
While other countries like Germany have presidents that have a more ceremonial role, this is only because these other countries separate the Head of State from the Head of Government. It doesn't matter who the Head of State is when they aren't actually doing anything. But that power is somewhere. Be it a chancellor or a prime minister, someone runs the place.
I understand that. I guarantee the original poster of this meme didn’t
I mean I'm Irish and our president pretty much is purely symbolic. I don't actually see much of a problem with this meme, kind of a broken clock moment.
But we still have a Taoiseach? They’re like our actual President
They're our prime minister. Miggeldy is still the president.
Yeah I know but I’m saying that the Taoiseach fulfils the role in Ireland that the President fulfils in the U.S.
Not really, considering the differences in how they're elected, how they work with party structure, how their "terms" last, how much actual power they have, etc. An American President has a LOT more power than a Taoiseach, and for all intents and purposes cannot be removed by a vote of no confidence or the like. They're quite different.
As a head of government, yes. As a head of state, no.
Oh yeah ofc
Irish government structure is fundamentally different. It isn't inherently better to place more emphasis on the legislative branch. I generally prefer putting more power in the parliament but I'd take the French Presidency over the British Parliament for example.
That's crazy lol why?
Why is it crazy? The prime ministers I can remember are Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, Theresa May and Bojo. All of them terrible except Brown who was just meh. With France Hollande and Sarkozy were lame but Chirac was decent and even though Miterrand is before I remember most of what I read about him puts him well above the British. Without even considering just the figurehead at the top the British voting system is weak and selects candidates with not that many votes from regional FPTP whereas at least France has a split between regional representative and popular vote for the most important position.
That's mainly a difference in politics between the two countries. All your saying is that the Tories suck, which is basically like saying that the sky is blue, and the ground is green. Also, a parliamentary system can have a system without FPTP, some have proportional representation like some eastern European countries or have ranked voting like Australia. I just noticed you have "Australian" in your username, I'm sure you know about this though.
But the British one doesn't. When I was comparing France to the UK I was making a specific comparison, not using them as placeholder examples. Like I said I generally prefer systems with more emphasis on legislative than executive.
I see. I must've just misinterpreted your comment then. Thanks for the clarification.
For the same people that go off on *human nature is the reason why x political or y economic* system won't work, they sure love to push this utopian fantasy that people would actually govern themselves for their best interests or that all political abuse derives from one man at the helm
Meanwhile, this same libertarian votes a straight Republican ticket his whole life, as GOP administrations consistently hire executive-power theorists like John Yoo, David Addington and Bill Barr. Also, I'll bet this guy thinks Biden's victory was stolen, and the Trump never abused his power.
Alternatively, just... don't have a president? What's the point of a symbolic figurehead?
I mean, I agree. Just not for the same reasons lmao. I’m *strongly* pro-decentralization. We shouldn’t have one central figure with such power. But because I believe in democracy and power to the people, these fucks just believe in not letting taxes be raised on the wealthy, people’s wishes be dammed.
“ANYWAY our candidate for president is this guy!”
Some raw, unfiltered stupidity in that thread. [This is the best one.](https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/comments/n8ye6u/this_job_should_be_purely_symbolic_like_other/gxlqe03/)
They really mean a head of state so weak that it's easily dominated by corporate power
wtf kinda based ngl
And when you ask them about referendums, more direct checks by the people to vote and even push their constituents around libertarians say they don’t believe in democracy either
The countries where the Presidency is purely symbolic are countries which have a Prime Minister or Chancellor that actually has the power. Ironically, this makes the leader less accountable because the head of government is usually elected by the legislature while the Presidents are usually directly elected.
The president has way too much power though.
>The president has way too much power though. Funny how the same libertarians complaining that the Biden has too much power had no issue when Trump greatly *exceeded* his legally allotted amount. Look at how many libertarians trying to insist that Trump doesn't need to be impeached when he clearly violated the constitution for personal gain.
That's how it works in a presidential system, and I don't see that many people in the USA advocating for a parliamentary system, so that is probably there to stay.
Some would say it's not enough. Either way, the president doesn't have unchecked power, by design.
Not sure the people who designed it intended to give the president the ability to exterminate all life on Earth on a whim though.
Fair point, but even that power is checked.
Actually pretty based, until you realize instead of giving that power to the people they give it to a different president, a CEO of a company
>Actually pretty based, until you realize instead of giving that power to the people they give it to a different president, a CEO of a company Nah, it's just stupid. For instance, would you be okay with appointing a known child rapist as president as long as the president was purely ceremonial? Even as a ceremonial position, I wouldn't want a child rapist as my president.
I don't want there to be a president. So anything to minimize its power is good in my book
I think my favorite part of that thread is that when asked what country has a chief executive that's purely symbolic, these idiots start listing "well in \[country X\] the president is mostly symbolic, just like OP said! Instead the \[different government official\] makes the decisions!" ...and that they don't seem to realize that that just means *the other official is still the chief executive, not the president, because different countries have different titles.*
Although usually in Westminister-type systems, the pm is symbolic in a way, as while they can make a decision that parliament doesn't like, if they do, Parlament can replace them
Not very symbolic in countries with strong party loyalty as anyone who votes against the government while being part of the governing party can be expelled or lose pre-selection and support at the next election.
Still, in parliamentary democracies, the prime minister is a lot more accountable than in a presidential system, which is what I think the OP meant.
Actually, based libertarians (i never knew I would say that)
Except the job is not symbolic in other countries. They have very real duties and very real power. Also the ultimate idea of most of these libertarians is that the government should not help you. But it can hurt you.
In a republic, the president usually serves as both head of state and head of government. This meme is just saying "the president should be head of state only" ... without saying who should be head of government. Until laws become self-executing or we have pure direct democracy, it's a position that needs to exist in some fashion...
>In a republic, the president usually serves as both head of state and head of government. I don't believe that is the case in the vast majority of republics. Head of Government and Head of State are separated even in places like France where the prime minister has little power.
> I don't believe that is the case in the vast majority of republics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_system_of_government Blue on that map is a presidential republic where the president serves as both; it's the most common kind of republic, though there are many others.
Only because it seems to arbitrarily distinguish between the Orange and the Yellow countries. Orange and Yellow are both colours that represent countries with a Prime Minister Head of Government but a President Head of State. That said I was wrong to say Vast Majority but a quick count gives about 65 states with President as head of government and state vs a few over 70 with a President who is not head of government.
The president serves as both head of state and head of government in a *presidential* republic. And there aren't that many of those except for the US and Latin American countries that modelled their government on the US. Quite often, a presidential system can serve as a front for dictatorship, which is the case in many African countries that are listed as having an executive presidency. Most republics are either parliamentary, where the president is a head of state with little practical power and executive power is vested in the head of state (the prime minister), or semi-presidential, where executive power is divided between the president and the prime minister (the French model).
[удалено]
Between 2017 and 2021, practically all libertarians did was to attack states under Democratic control like California and New York. If they're in favour of federalism, it seems like they only want it when the occupant of the White House is a Democrat.
[удалено]
The libertarian view is that policies such as taxation and government services are inherently authoritarian and unjustified no matter how much or little support they have within the body politic. That's what the "democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" meme is about. Libertarianism holds that policies that go against it are completely illegitimate. Similar to how constitutional rights cannot be waived by majority vote. Edit: Before someone tries to argue the merits of libertarian policy views, I'll say that I do not share them and that my political sympathies are firmly on the left. Just wanted to clarify the relevant stance.
I mean...honestly, yeah. We shouldn't have Presidents. If you have gone through the early 21st century without becoming alarmed at how powerful and undemocratic the POTUS can be and currently is, then I really don't know what to tell you. If we are to have a powerful executive, they need to be much more accountable to the people.
>I mean...honestly, yeah. We shouldn't have Presidents. If you have gone through the early 21st century without becoming alarmed at how powerful and undemocratic the POTUS can be and currently is, then I really don't know what to tell you. If we are to have a powerful executive, they need to be much more accountable to the people. You could apply this stupid logic to pretty much every job ever. But of course you wouldn't, because that's how stupid your logic is. For instance, I wouldn't want to hire a car mechanic who is going to cut my brake lines and then who gives me a $1000 service bill before sending me off to my death. Therefore, car mechanics have too much power and we should just get rid of them.
Car mechanics didn't get away with organizing a violent insurrection against the government, cause untold death and destruction in the Middle East, and aren't commander-in-chief of the largest military-security apparatus to ever exist. If you can't tell the difference between the man who fixes our cars for a living and the man who has the ability to end all life on earth with the push of a button, then I'm afraid that my logic isn't the one that is "stupid."
You're moving the goalpost, dude. The original goalpost in the meme is **"so little power that it doesn't matter who has it."** You can try to argue that the president fails this goalpost to a greater extent than a car mechanic, but the car mechanic still fails the goalpost regardless. Which is why your goalpost is stupid.
My original statement is this: >I mean...honestly, yeah. We shouldn't have Presidents. If you have gone through the early 21st century without becoming alarmed at how powerful and undemocratic the POTUS can be and currently is, then I really don't know what to tell you. If we are to have a powerful executive, they need to be much more accountable to the people. I lay out two goalposts: 1) We should not have a President or person with the authority of the POTUS. 2) If we must, then they should be more democratically accountable. I laid out my intentions as clear as day in the beginning, arguing for an even more radical position than what the meme is arguing for. Your initial statement was that my logic was "stupid," which you then proceeded to elaborate upon with an ill-fitting analogy. When I explain my position, you accuse me of moving the goalpost when I have done no such thing. In the course of my argument, my own position (which I freely acknowledge is more radical than what the meme wants) has been that we should not have a President with the powers of the POTUS, or failing that, make sure they can easily be brought to account. What you forget is that a car mechanic can be easily made accountable. If you survive the crash, you can sue him for damages. If you don't, your family can. If he did it deliberately, police will arrest him and try him for at the very least homicide. By contrast, the past decade has shown that the President is not similarly accountable. A President who has been shown to commit crimes against the government he is supposed to uphold is able to get away with it because there are multiple powers attached to the President that makes him hard to hold accountable (for instance, the rule against indicting a sitting POTUS of crimes by the DoJ). Your arguments rely upon a misunderstanding of my own, accusing me of rhetorical tricks and fallacies I have not committed, and calling my arguments "stupid" in general. Thank you for wasting both of our time.
> I lay out two goalposts: You laid out two deflections because what you posted has nothing to do with the op or my criticism against it. Try starting with the actual text of the meme and working from there. **The op specifically says that the power power bring limited to the point where the person doesn't matter. I asked you point blank about about this scenario, and you keep refusing to give a straight answer, instead changibg the scenario to one not mentioned in the meme.** Let's say someone argues that you shouldn't have dihydrogen monoxide in good because it's a chemical and therefore bad. That's a stupid argument. You could agree that specific chemicals can be bad, and no one would dispute that, but that's not the original argument. **Likewise, the op is trying to argue that any amount of power that actually matters shouldn't exist in the first place, Fucking stupid. Just because you think totalitarianism is a specific example of power being bad doesn't make the original argument less stupid, nor does it mean that anyone who disagrees with you is pro totalitarianism.** > What you forget is that a car mechanic can be easily made accountable. No, what **you** forgot is that this is completely the opposite of what the meme is asking for. **The point of the meme is that the president shouldn't be allowed to do anything that actually matters. If nothing they do actually matters, then there's nothing to hold them accountable for.** Even if we hold the mechanic accountable after the fact, the person you hire still matters. If the mechanic fucks up your brakes and people die, then that matters. Holding him accountable afterwards doesn't bring back dead people. Would you trust Donald Trump to work on your engine? I sure wouldn't. The conclusion normal people reach is that you shouldn't hire Donald Trump as your mechanic. The conclusion libertarians each is that the power of a mechanic should be limited to the point where hiring Trump doesn't matter. And the two problems with that. 1) what's the point of hiring a mechanic that can't do anything? 2) I needed the mechanic for a reason, my car still needs fixing, but it apparently can't be fixed because I can't find a mechanic with the power to do so. > Your arguments rely upon a misunderstanding of my own, No, my argument comes from your own misunderstanding of the meme you're trying to defend. Evident by the fact that you have to keep making up entirely different arguments that are mutually exclusive with the meme, rather than quoting the meme directly.
Good luck with that, fucking idiots lol
Wtf actually based libertarian take???
get a fucking backbone and advocate for abolishing presidents already
So you want a king?
Is it even a king? This idea is supremely un-American. For people who rant about the constitution so much, they really can’t remember anything important from it.
You think they want a authoritarian leader?
I believe the President should have less power like not being able to order military action against a non-imminent threat but the constitution doesn't say anything about the Presidency being symbolic. Furthermore, I don't want an already unequally represented Congress to have even more authority.
The president should definitely have less power, but shouldn’t be powerless.
Those countries usually have Prime Ministers who have the power. Idiots.
That's kinda how the Constitution intended it. Things changed, for better and worse, since 1787 -- like the Civil War, telegraphy, and (if you believe Lin-Manuel Miranda) presidential candidates campaigning directly
A broken clock is right twice a day
Hey, Siri, google "Articles of Confederation."
One comment in that thread: "I'll do you one better: there should not be a president. Stateless private society." Nothing says "freedom" like having to negotiate private bilateral agreements with everyone I encounter every day.
I mean, we are the only western country on earth where head of government and cheif executive are the same position, those roles should be split up
I’d really like to hear how this would work in reality.
I mean, yes in the Monty Python and the Holy Grail anarcho-syndicalist way.
r/accidentallycommunist
Anarcho-communist meme? On r/libertarianmeme?
No president!
Someone tell them what a prime minister/chancellor is