Who Needs a President?

This I like.

On November 4, I wrote:

...voting implies constant change toward more and more laws that will benefit only the few. For voters are voting in congressmen to be "lawmakers". This implies change in laws. And voting for a president means electing someone who will read and execute laws anyway he sees fit, to meet his agenda. The founding fathers made a great mistake creating a base of governing people who can change laws and a president who can run rampant supposedly executing these laws.

If the founding fathers truly understood the importance of the rule of law, the non-aggression principle and a private property society, it is difficult to understand why they would have constructed a system that at its core has a massive body of elected meddlers. What are all these laws the meddlers are making? It creates nothing but confusion, complexity and an edge for those who can get to the lawmakers and influence them.

Wouldn't it have been much better to adopt the non-aggression principle and a declaration recognizing the sanctity of private property and leave it at that?

The constant changing of laws results in major power groups organizing in ways to attempt to sway laws in their favor. None of these laws have anything to do with the non-aggression principle and recognition of the sanctity of private property.  Indeed, all the laws tend to do is violate the non-aggression principle and the sanctity of private property. It causes the Koch brother types, the Sheldon Adelson types and the George Soros types to attempt to edge the lawmaking for their benefit. And, of course, the congressman will also create rules, and presidents will execute laws, that, for the most part, are in line with totalitarian actions that will help them maintain the greatest control and influence while they are in power. But, remember, it is the lawmaking itself that is at the core causing the confusion, complexity and a less free world.

Thus, voting is a contradiction for the advocate of freedom. A freedom advocate shouldn't be in favor of electing "lawmakers" that create new laws and presidents that willy nilly interpret laws far from the principles of the non-aggression principle . A freedom advocate should instead be in favor of  a society that at a gut level has a respect for private property and respect for the non-aggression principle. No voting required and no lawmakers required.

Voting is a charade that fools the masses into thinking they have a say and a chance of coming out on top, when the game is indeed played at a very sophisticated level by power players for their benefit, where polls are taken so that politicians know exactly what to say to gain votes, despite what they will do when they are in power. Millions upon millions of votes, in other words, will be  cast that on an individual basis will have zero impact, but will make all those voting "feel good". It's dumb.

The founding fathers messed up. They should have written the Constitution without any reference to elections, and started and ended the Constitution this way:

We hold that people should be allowed to live and let live.

That they didn't has resulted in packs of competing power players seeking to change laws in their favor, mostly in an attempt to put more controls on the rest of us. It makes no sense for any of the rest of us to play this game.

When a private property society comes, there will be no voting and no lawmakers. You can start the world on that path. Don't vote. Live and let live. The more and more people that abide by live and let live, the freer the world gets. No voting required.

The next day, Bill Kuafman, while not going as far as I did in questioning the need for any lawmakers, does question the need for a president and provides some interesting historical background, in a must read commentary titled, Who Needs a President?