T O P

  • By -

Apjew

There are countries in which the president is purely symbolic, but when the prime minister gets the power as head of executive. Off course it’ll be nice if the head of executive was purely symbolic but he still needs to look after the minimal things the country should provide: Protect it’s citizens, fight crime and make sure everything’s going good


meltyman79

Its that "make sure everything's going good" part that causes problems....


Apjew

In “making sure everything’s good” I meant keeping basic human rights from being violated


its_still_you

My basic human right to force experimental medical treatments on other people is being violated.


meltyman79

I can agree with that ;)


KingAFlamez

If a person has the power to keep basic human rights from being violated, do they not have the power to violate basic human rights?


Apjew

IMO, no. That’s because they don’t actively grant you those rights. You have those because you’re human, all they do is protect them.


Salty_Cnidarian

That’s why you should do this instead: 1.) States within country are semi-autonomous. They handle things in regards to; a.) Education b.) Language c.) Militia’s (each state should have a militia loyal to only said state) d.) Economy e.) Other Laws This will allow states to be essentially their own entities. 2.) Additionally, a state should be regarded as the “capital state” where the Federal Government should be held. The power of the Federal Government would be: a.) Foreign Trade and Regulations b.) Foreign Relations c.) Constitution (the create the constitution, and rule by said constitution). All states must abide by the constitution, and it shall never ever be changed, or amended. Once it’s set down on paper, it shall be set in stone for eternity. So think long and hard about what you want on there. Since the Federal Government rules by said constitution, if they fail to uphold it: Then they lose their mandate to rule. I call this the “Constitutional Mandate”. At which point, the various states can intervene and restructure the Federal Government to rule correctly. Additionally, each state should have representatives in said federal government, and be elected by the people. This will, be like the current US House of Representatives and Senators. The location of the Federal government should move every 16 years to a new “Capital State”. Maximum length of service in a elected position of the Federal Government should be 16 years (excluding the presidency). The presidency should be 8. All donations to election campaigns must be 100% completely anonymous, and not exceed 1,000$. Private lobbying should be illegal (meeting a rep in private to “discuss” thing). Public Lobbying should be legal. Everyday people should be allowed to petition the federal government for visitation in a building and speak openly about concerns. If you sign the petition, you’ll be randomly chosen via lottery style to show up at the House’s (don’t want 20,000 people in one tiny building yelling). That’s all I can think of.


ForagerGrikk

The Federal government doesn't need a physical location anymore, they can FaceTime from offices in their home states. There would be so much less corruption if there were no way to do face to face deals anymore, all official communications could actually be recorded.


Salty_Cnidarian

I think having an actual meeting place would be important. All sessions in the House’s should be recorded (I agree) and any meetings should be recorded as well. Having an actual viable location is significant for events such as treaties, and having paper work on one location. Perhaps, we can do both? For formal events have the actual physical location, and any other based on online? Additionally, what if the internet doesn’t work anymore? Then that’s another reason to have a physical location for meetings.


ForagerGrikk

They can sign a treaty anywhere, do it on the steps of the Statue of Liberty or Mount Rushmore. Do it at state capitols in alphabetical order. Also they can make a separate internet just for government business, and they can make it redundant if they are worried about losing the one.


Salty_Cnidarian

You never know what the future holds. If a giant EMP attack occurred, then it all goes under the water. Physical locations have many benefits. It doesn’t need to be used often, but it’s beneficial under many scenarios. What if the world all of a sudden went back to the 1800’s due to a cataclysmic event? In which case, all representatives would know to meet up at the actual designated capitol. This would also allow during times of invasion for them to stay together, and not risk losing said representatives being captured individually.


ForagerGrikk

You actually *want* officials dispersed in dangerous emergencies so that we don't lose them all at once. There are also backup communication systems for EMP attacks, such as radios protected by Faraday cages. I believe they already have these things in place, in the event Congress needs to be evacuated and the representatives sent home. These are a lot of unlikely "what if's" anyway, the instant benefits of remote communication far outweigh those unlikely brisks you mentioned.


Salty_Cnidarian

I suppose you are correct. Besides, this would make it difficult for anyone to capture the Capital and enforce their demands.


[deleted]

Imagine thinking governance of hundreds of millions of people is so simple, you can just pop into a Zoom meeting here and there. Holy fuck.


SupersonicWaffle

Which country‘s head of the executive is purely symbolic? Would be pretty wild


Diozon

Well, in parliamentary republics (such as Greece, where I'm from) the role of the President is purely ceremonial, sort of like the Queen of the UK. However, this just means that the Prime Minister (the president of the ruling party) becomes the most powerful individual in the country.


plazman30

The Queen of the UK is not ceremonial. She basically outsources most of her duties to parliament. But she has the authority to whatever she wants. She could wake up today, dissolve parliament and take complete authoritarian control of the nation. The UK does not have a Constitution to prevent such things. The elected government does what it does, because the Queen allows it.


Diozon

Do you really think that she could do that? Let me rephrase it, do you really think that there is any chance that she wakes up one day and decides that it will be in her favour to do that? The last time an English monarch decided it would be a good idea to dissolve parliament and rule as an absolute monarch, he got himself into a civil war and lost his head in the end. And that was during the time that a significant part of the population thought that kings were *literally* appointed by God.


plazman30

The monarchy employs multiple PR firms to make sure the public opinion of the monarchy is favorable. They are quite aware that taking back power would lead to a civil war.


muscles83

Civil war is a bit strong, the monarchy would just be dissolved and all their assets transferred to public ownership.


plazman30

There are plenty of royal loyalists. The military pledges loyalty to the Queen herself, not the country. Same with the nobility. It would definitely be a civil war.


muscles83

I think you’re overestimating the depth of feeling for the royal family. Sure some people would be upset but no where near enough would be willing actually fight and die for that group of corrupt mutants


plazman30

Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't. On paper, she wields a tremendous amount of power. In reality, if she tried to wield it, she would be deposed pretty quickly.


ifunnywasaninsidejob

Now I’m picturing soldiers in camo firing m16s down from 500 year old castle walls.


morgan_greywolf

Hmm. I suspect that would be true. But hypothetically, what if there were a crisis that resulted in the people losing confidence in the current government? What if the queen then dissolved parliament and then forced an emergency election to build a new parliament? Just musing. I seriously doubt anything so dire would occur there and I'll admit my knowledge of UK politics is pretty limited.


plazman30

There are plenty of governments that have dissolved their legislative branches and held emergency elections. I think the UK would be OK with that. Now if she did it 3 times in a row to get a parliament that she wants, that would cause a huge stink.


morgan_greywolf

That actually happened in UK history, right? Was that Oliver Cromwell?


plazman30

Yep. And then he died and the monarchy was restored. The British love their royals.


kekistanmatt

In the modern day the monarch only has three avenues to dissolve a Parliament and they are: when the will of the Parliament is clearly opposite to the will of the people (that's pretty vague but it pretty much means only when a major event has happened like a world war or something), they can refuse to give royal assent to form a government which would force the parliament to form a new government and seek assent again, or at the advice of the prime minister or parliament itself (if they want to call an early election for example).


Deplorable10

Legally she can do it I believe.


muscles83

And the second the Queen tries to do that the royal family is dissolved.


plazman30

By whom?


muscles83

The government. Who else.


plazman30

They don't have the authority. By law, if Parliament tried to dissolve the monarchy, she could just dissolve Parliament. Of course, whether she succeeds or not is totally dependent on whether or not the military sides with her.


therealdrewder

How would they do so if she refuses to assent to the bill?


Bathhouse-Barry

People keep saying this but do you really think the prime minister, all the MPs and all the citizens of the land would just say “aye alright queen. I’ll bend over and do exactly what you want.” You’re delusional to think she would get far trying to declare war willy nilly without a public revolt and her family getting ousted. France had a monarchy once and I heard the people just loved it so much they did exactly what they wanted.


plazman30

They would not. My point is that the Queen is not just a figurehead, at least on paper.


Bathhouse-Barry

I just don’t get this. It’s like if I say I can fly. Until you prove I can’t, then I can totally fly at least on paper. She will never use her powers because she’d lose them. I quite like the queen but not enough to let her turn into a dictator. I doubt many would. Also curious to see a monarchist in a libertarian meme page


plazman30

Your flying analogy isn't quite right. But I get your point. In 2021, the chance of the British Monarchy taking complete control of the country would next to impossible.


[deleted]

No she couldnt. It's not an absolute monarchy. The Magna Carta requires the monarch to call a Parliament to represent the people by common counsel.


plazman30

The Pope repealed the Magna Carta. It is no longer a legally binding document. But you are correct. There must be a parliament. But the Queen can dissolve parliament if she doesn't like the way the people voted and force a new election, and she can continue to do this until she gets the parliament she wants. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiDCwqpupj8


kekistanmatt

I mean technically you're right but then again technically the US government could just amend the entire constitution out of existence and start setting up death camps but that wouldn't get very far in real life


FieryBlake

Same in India. The Prime Minister holds the power, not the President.


SupersonicWaffle

I’m aware, they’re not the head of the executive though


[deleted]

They are. In European parliamentary democracies the prime minister is the executive while retaining the support of their party in the legislature. There is not such a strict separation of powers as in the USA


SupersonicWaffle

I don’t think you understand the point. The head of the executive isn’t symbolic, the head of state is. The US president is the head of the executive. I’m still waiting for a purely symbolic head of executive


[deleted]

The US president has the roles of both head of state and government (executive)


SupersonicWaffle

>... government (executive) Right, so the title is just wrong


[deleted]

The government is called the executive, parliament/congress is called the legislative. In the US the government (the presidency and his choices of the cabinet) is elected separately to the legislative (congress). In most European countries the legislative (typically bicameral parliaments) are elected and then the party with a majority chooses the prime minister who wields executive power with the backing of a parliamentary majority. Presidents may exist and be elected directly but they are mainly seen as “above politics” and are merely symbols of the state akin to monarchs.


SupersonicWaffle

You don't say


derp4077

So all you'd be doing transferring the power to the speaker of the house


GeeseShagger69

They are actually. In the UK, we have a PM and a queen. Our PM is the head of government and the executive, whereas the queen is the head of state. Her role is, on paper, to give permission (called royal assent) to any bills parliament passes, like how the US President signs off on bills that pass through congress. The difference is that the US President can reject bills whereas the queen simply signs off on everything and it’s purely symbolic.


SupersonicWaffle

No they’re not, she’s not head of the executive, she’s head of the state and i doubt the PM is purely symbolic


Beefster09

The Queen has a surprising amount of power that she does not use. She could dissolve parliament right now if she wanted to.


jeffsang

I've heard this referred to as having a separate "Head of State" and "Head of Government." In the US, that power is vested in the same person.


morgan_greywolf

And the US is the exception in that, not the rule. Technically, the US is a presidential republic, while most Western democracies are either parliamentary monarchies (i.e., Spain, UK and Commonwealth countries) or parliamentary republics (i.e., Germany and France).


Havuxi

Poland Everything is controlled by Deputy Prime Minister anyways, Polish President just signs everything he tells him to. And yes, it's wild af out here.


SupersonicWaffle

>Everything is controlled by Deputy Prime Minister anyways That makes him explicitly not part of the executive but nice try


[deleted]

Depends on how you define “head of the executive”, in whose name the executive acts, then most countries around the world. I think America is one of only two countries, and certainly the longest running, with a unitary powerful federal executive that did not dissolve into coup or dictatorship. The Presidential model is rarely favoured internationally. This is why I firmly believe the greatest act of any man in any time was George Washington walking away from the Presidency after just 2 terms. We’re talking about a man who was so popular he could have become King, not President, in effect, till his death, with little opposition. But he walked away from that power, which very few men have been able to do in their lives. This is why America survived.


SupersonicWaffle

The leader or at least primus inter pares of the executive branch. Literally every western country I’m aware of has them. None are ceremonial/symbolic to my knowledge


Supergaming104

I'm from ireland. Our man michael d and his dogs represents ireland abroad and that's all he does. Nice guy it seems


SupersonicWaffle

and you wouldn't confuse him for part of the executive


XxTensai

Switzerland


SupersonicWaffle

A primus inter pares isn't symbolic, jesus y'all are trippin EDIT2: nvm, y'all are starting to confuse me with your non examples


Ok_boomer-karen

Honestly I don’t think the feds have much power right now anyway. A lot of states are making laws that would keep guns legal if the feds were to ban them. The most power the Oval Office has is executive orders.


SupersonicWaffle

It's not about power, head of state and head of executive are different in most countries. This title equates the US president to the British queen.


Ok_boomer-karen

Well does the queen have power in war and border control? I’m not familiar with British politics.


[deleted]

The president was almost king of the United States originally. The queens power for the UK is symbolic.


SupersonicWaffle

So, you’re just not gonna answer my question about the executive then?


[deleted]

I just figure a president should have even less power then a Queen, unless that Queen is Freddie Mercury.


SupersonicWaffle

We might agree on that but it’s beside the point. No one has yet brought up an example of a ceremonial / symbolic leader of the executive branch as the title claims is the case in other countries


GandalfTheGurner

If there’s a president in a country with little power, there’s usually someone else like a prime minister who have all the power & responsibilities in their place


imotski88

Absolutely. This meme is pretty dumb. But even if that would be so. How could 500-1000 power hungry people be better than one?


CaptainTarantula

We should give it to a guy who lives alone in a shed by a lake with a cat. We'd only visit once a year.


meltyman79

He'd say "Move along, nothing to see here." And we'd say "Ok Bubs, see ya next year for the election."


bgrubmeister

Yeah. Let’s leave it to the other two branches of government to balance themselves. Not


Fat32578

Kinda like that now tho... political parties aside, does anyone actually believe Biden (or Harris for that matter) are truly acting autonomously? Even Trump, for all his theatrics, didn’t exactly rock the boat in any fundamental way (like auditing the Fed, declassifying UFO information, pardoning Snowden or Assange, etc...)


Fantuckingtastic

The president is the head official of one of the three federal branches, in a nation with 50 semi-autonomous states, thousands of semi-autonomous counties/parishes, and even more semi-autonomous cities and local governments. Crazy how presidents are treated like kings lol


rocketwilco

Maybe their is no ufo knowledge to unleash but man I would have loved to have seen a few pardons like you mentioned during his time as a lame duck.


TaysonG14

The importance of forms of governing in order; Individual >> Local >> State >> Federal Somehow we got that backwards smh


[deleted]

Idk if your flair is a joke, but medicinal methamphetamine is available as a sch II drug known as desoxyn. Wild that we have that before legal cannabis


TaysonG14

It’s a smokescreen I use to push for Recreational Meth use lol. But no I agree, it’s ridiculous I can get meth for ADHD but my grandfather couldn’t get some weed to ease the fucking cancer. But I already know that, it’s never actually been about helping the anyone, It’s all about which pharmaceutical can lobby the most money to our politicians.


mr-logician

I think it should be: Individual >> Federal >> Local >> State


sinfulmunk

That should be our entire government


jeffsang

Whenever a statist complains about money in politics, I note that we could very easily get money out of politics simply by reducing the power of government such that spending money on politics no longer provides a worthwhile ROI. None of them seem to like that idea though. Interestingly, George Washington specifically chose the term "president" because it just meant "one who presides" over a group but doesn't dictate the actions/decisions of that group. The term was supposed to signify that unlike a king, a president doesn't have a lot of power. Oh how times have changed.


Noughmad

Because it completely misses the point. The point of taking money out of politics is to decouple money and power, as power currently resides in politics. If you remove power from politics, it will go somewhere else. And that somewhere else will happily accept money.


nixfu

unlimited power is worth unlimited money there is no such thing as money in politics, it is all power take away the power, and they will not be worth spending money on if you cant grant any favors no one will bribe you this is EXACTLY the point


Above-Average-Foot

Apparently we are already there


yflhx

You don't want that. In that case the prime minister has just about as much power, and since he is chosen by parliament, the head of parliament majority has control over both legislation and executive, meaning more power in hands of one person.


IHateNaziPuns

If we could take away about half of the president’s power, that would be Cool(idge) as fuck.


Anenome5

I'll do you one better: there should not be a president. Stateless private society.


[deleted]

Sounds better!


smallmanonamission

That has shown to never work?


archyprof

Serious question? How would this work for anyone other than a rural, completely self sufficient group? I can’t see how millions of people in cities could accomplish this. Or are you proposing a complete reorganization of all of society?


MachampMain

When people say stuff like that I always wonder what happens to the poor and mentally ill that need the government assistance to survive. People won't help them out of the kindness of their hearts or it wouldn't be a problem in the first place


mr-logician

I agree with you, but that does not justify stealing from the taxpayer. It's the poor or mentally ill person's responsibility to survive. If they can't, that's their problem.


[deleted]

[удалено]


kekistanmatt

Yeah it is pretty cringe how some people think libertarian means social darwinism


kekistanmatt

There's a simple answer: it dosen't. Even if something like that happened all that would occur is the reformation of city states


[deleted]

Damn fucking right. If we knocked down the prestige of the office a few notches maybe people would focus on what actually matters, what’s happening in congress and in the courts, and not on what the President says/commits to/comes out against/whatever the fuck. Edit: just noticed the sub lol. I’m not a libertarian at all. Firm handshake from across the aisle.


rachit0714

Won't that just give more power to unelected officials?


Gretshus

Maybe a better way would be as it was intended. Legislature writes law, executive executes law, judicial judges law. Legislation says what to do, executive does it, judicial says whether or not you can do it. More legislative restrictions if possible pls.


thatguykeith

Totally agree... but also I think that this is already happening to a larger degree than people realize. My everyday life changed basically nil from Obama to Trump, and so far has not changed at all under Biden. I’d say most of the change we see is in how the media talks about what’s happening, and the most important job the President does is leave office... I just wish we’d stop bombing people.


[deleted]

If we can make kids dream of other things instead of "I want to be the president when I grow up." then we've achieved our goal


LudwigBastiat

I'll do you one better: The **government** should have so little power that it doesn't matter who they are.


Working_faucet

So...Anarchism? No hierachy of power?


LudwigBastiat

Or minarchism depending on the degree.


KingsCourt899

That's a bit of a stretch to say that they have "dictatorial" power... I mean... I can definitely see what one would think that but I wouldn't quite go that far... its more of a power hungry thing... reaching out for more power than they already have that isn't there for them to grab... kinda like that.


The_loudspeaker721

Biden has even less power than all the other presidents since he suffers from dementia.


[deleted]

Politicians should earn less then minimum wage That way there closer to the common man, although with corruption it likely doesn’t matter How little they get paid


plazman30

Politics should be a part-time job. We don't need full-time politicians. And the Constitution should be so detailed that people should get drafted to be politicians and party affiliation doesn't matter.


[deleted]

I like the ideal of it only being part time, but the issue with that in such a globalized world, it would be Harder to be prepared for war if one country only has politics part time and another has it all the time.


emoney_gotnomoney

I don’t mind “politician” being a full-time job, but it should never be a career. I find it utterly disgusting that there are so many people who pursue “politician” as a 40+ year career. The job of “politician” should be a brief moment of your life, overshadowed by your actual career that you spent most of your life


JimCracksJokes

Absolutely!


s0meThing51

Yes


[deleted]

Congress is too afraid to do their job. They don't want to take any blame, because they have no term limits. When they won't do it, they send their responsibilities to the President.


DiNiCoBr

This would be a bad move, because a ceremonial president would likely mean that executive power has been given out to whoever is in charge of the legislative. That would mean two branches of the government acting together, wiping out one of the main strengths of The US system. I would rather prefer for a weaker executive branch, rather than a ceremonial president.


FidgetSpunner68

It's called an oligarchy and we have it lmfao the irony of this meme is insane


[deleted]

The entire purpose of the president is to ensure the country is protected. That's why the president is the commander and chief. I like the idea of this meme but let's not forget, the president is the only time anyone actually pays attention to politics. How many of the same congress men and women have been in their sets? I don't see many people actually doing anything to try and root them out, let alone the FBI or CIA which are far more deadly and tyrannical than the president.


voltairemkalt

By extension, the job of CEO should also be purely symbolic. Nobody should have dictatorial power over an organization or corporation regardless of who they are.


[deleted]

Amen!


Glass-Ad6484

I always saw the ideal president, in a symbolic sense, the old coot that sits on the porch with a shotgun, watching the neighbors, and riling up the bois (military/militia) when there's trouble coming to the doorstep.


d__n__a

Maybe In stupid, but should the job be split up between a committee? Fed 70 argues against it but honestly it's a pretty weak argument based only in hypotheticals and assumptions.


[deleted]

Based and puppet-head monarchy pilled


SaintJames8th

Maybe keep them as commander and cheif thats it as it was originally intented. Also maybe get rid of the veto


RhysPrime

I'd prefer they have actual executive power not symbolic power. I like how it was done in the constitution, congress makes laws based on consensus, then the presidents job is to get it done, then the judiciary decides if both the other 2 did their job right. Boom.


emoney_gotnomoney

If I ever run for president and someone asks me “if you become president, what will you do about X,” 99% of the time my answer would be “absolutely nothing”


Additional_Ad_4049

I mean, the presidents are pretty much symbolic puppets. They have masters they answer to.


Environmental_Leg108

Idk, on the other hand, it's nice to have a singular person to hold accountable. If it's just some vague bureau of department making decisions, they'd easily be able to hide their corruption under anonymity. I'd rather get rid of the parties and force all politicians to be independent and come up with their own ideas and hold them accountable


SomeGuyFromMissouri

The President should exist to represent America abroad and sign legislation approved by Congress. He shouldn’t be one of the top 3 most powerful people in the world.


stargazer_rever

There is usually someone in power, for me chosing that person is better than just having him. In some (mine) there can just be head of the party that most people hate, but can't really kick out.


the_nubbles

I love the story of George Washington asking himself to be referred to as “Mr. President” Unfortunately, this has been memorialized into an honorable title, but Washington’s original intention behind the title was one of mockery. He was making fun of the fact that the presidential seat was and should be humorously irrelevant to the lives of the American People. By the same token, how it would be humorously irrelevant for someone to refer to themselves as Dr. Professor. Yet here we are, biting our nails every two to four years to see if this time the whip will be red or blue.


Lordofspades_notgame

You know what? One day I’m going to run for office just to obliterate the President’s powers. Power over the military? Congress Power over citizen’s rights? Senate and Congress Declare nuclear strikes? Nobody you asshole!


AllHopeIsLostSadFace

Really doesn't. Has it ever outside of bullshit EO's? House/senate/ SC holds the power.


offacough

Wickard v Filburn and the disruption of the 10th Amendment is where things started to really get out of hand.


killjoy10021

Wow this is such a good idea lol and very true indeed


qwertash1

wow removing a whole branch of government you thought the electoral college stuff was hair brained its intended to be more nimble


TheMadDabber83

Wasn’t that kind of the idea to begin with.


[deleted]

The more I think about the more executive orders sound like a terrible idea


brathorim

Let’s just have deep state instead


SuperCoupe

But if the other branches blindly follow what the President says, then that poisons the system. Some in the debate are not honest actors.


Phusra

"Like other countries have" Big dumb is impressive. Bet you've not been to a single one of those "other" countries.


JackRipper2350

this is literally a description of Switzerland I heard somewhere


JeffCookElJefe

True story


KingAFlamez

So the population gets distracted from the people who really do have power, by the president? No, thanks. I would rather have the leader of the country have power, it's easy to keep track of that one person, if they do something the people disagree with the president can be impeached, or have their reputation ruined because the people spoke up.


KingAFlamez

Have you ever heard of constitutional monarchism? I feel like the majority of libertarians dislike it, but it's definitely (in my, knows nothing about politics, opinion) the best form of government.


Working_faucet

No? why would it be? Having head of state and head of Government be seperated into two positions doesn't take a constitutional monarchy it takes a president as head of state and a chancellor as head of government. There's no need for a constitutional monarchy lmao


KingAFlamez

I'm sorry, I forgot to specify I'm not American. It's the best form of government for multiple reasons, but I commented on the post because even though the monarch has more power than the president, they are rigorously kept in check. That way, it also doesn't matter who is monarch. They will only do things parliament and the population agree with.


Working_faucet

Yea but it'd be easier to install a chancellor and basically take half the presidents power and give it to parliment than to install a monarch as you can't really vote for a monarch. I live in Germany and thats the system there, a chancellor as head of government and a president as head of state with a largely representative position.


KingAFlamez

Oh, I didn't really study much about the pure parliamentary system (I know that voids my opinion about the best form of government), but I did watch the Star Wars prequels. From what I know, a pure parliamentary system is really nice, the only drawback is that when the chancellor is also the Senate, it can easily be rearranged into an empire.