Political Theory

Re: Presidential Hypothetical

ryanpatgray — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:20:04 GMT

Mlee:
Edit: Tim would be capable of establishing a right to secession in any of these given scenarios, unless he was overruled by some means, in which case he would no longer be ruler, problem solved, (I think?)

EDIT: I saw secesssion and was thinking SUCESSION: Sorry, ignore this post (at least the first part of it). My mistake.

Under U.S. Law he would have to have a VP candidate (before becoming president) who would become POTUS after his resignation. Then it would fall to the Speaker of the House. If the new president wanted to appoint a VP the candidate would have to be approved by congress. From a pragmatic standpoint it would make more sense for an anarchist president to stay president and simply veto everything except the repeal of a law. That would be more effective in my view. If he simply resigned he would be replaced by his VP and if his VP resigned he would be replaced by a statist Speaker of the House. He could do more good for the cause by simply staying president. Imagine what it would mean to have a president who refused to sign any budget into law!

Re: Presidential Hypothetical

Mlee — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:07:51 GMT

Mlee:

Tim, if forced into office, will not be able to eliminate the state since he has no such capacity. Tim, if forced by the state, will then simply resign through the states own power, and by the power of the state, will be able to prevent his being pushed into office. Tim, if still loyal to anarchist principles is ordered by a majority of people in a given territory to rule that territory, he will only agree to govern those who agree with his being pushed into office, once in this given office, the right to seccession will be established, since he will be capable of pardoning anyone who attempts to seccede, the only way this could be undone is if congress declared war on seccessionists, which would undermine the presidents power, hence making him irrelevent, hence giving him no reason to continue participating in the process. This will allow Tim to piss off a bunch of his former supporters, hence they will push him OUT of office just as they pushed him in.

At least that's my take.

Edit: Tim would be capable of establishing a right to seccession in any of these given senarios, unless he was overrulled by some means, in which case he would no longer be ruler, problem solved, (I think?)

Re: Presidential Hypothetical

Mlee — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:59:46 GMT

Tim, if forced into office, will not be able to eliminate the state since he has no such capacity. Tim, if forced by the state, will then simply resign through the states own power, and by the power of the state, will be able to prevent his being pushed into office. Tim, if still loyal to anarchist principles is ordered by a majority of people in a given territory to rule that territory, he will only agree to govern those who agree with his being pushed into office, once in this given office, the right to seccession will be established, since he will be capable of pardoning anyone who attempts to seccede, the only way this could be undone is if congress declared war on seccessionists, which would undermine the presidents power, hence making him irrelevent, hence giving him no reason to continue participating in the process. This will allow Tim to piss off a bunch of his former supporters, hence they will push him OUT of office just as they pushed him in.

At least that's my take.

Presidential Hypothetical

Andrew — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:43:36 GMT

Let suppose that a majority of Americans vote and write in a guy, Tim, for president. Many Americans know about Tim and do not like the other candidates, so they write him in. Tim will not accept his appointment. Tim is secretly an anarchist and does not believe in the State and will not participate in any of its activities, much less lead it.

Is Tim obliged or even forced to become president against his will? Would the government be obliged by its "duties" to "protect the people's democracy" to force Tim into office. Would it be legitimate for the masses that voted for him, force him to be head of state, claiming that voting is their only defense against the State.

A)Should the State coerce this man into office? (keep the people blind and happy to stay in power ,not knowing that Tim will eliminate it)

B)Should the people coerce him into office? (unknowingly eliminate the State, but kill Tim's individuality and principals, turning him into a slave, and become like the State.)

Which choice is the least harmful?