Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
dadmonson

Quick Question: What time period was America at it's Best?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The answer to your question would need to be qualified, of course, by a specific standard of "good." Using the early 1960s as a standard is reasonable, based on domestic conditions, but on the international scene, there were problems most people would choose to ignore. The economy was flourishing and it was very common for any white man who was willing to get a job could easily find one, and that job would allow him to support a family of two or more children, while the wife managed the household without going out to work. Idealizing the 1950s/1960s, of the  "Leave It to Beaver", "Mayberry," and "Camelot" facade, often overlooks the tragic shortcomings of a society unwilling to shed its racist and sexist norms. Less obvious were the costs of the Cold War, the secret international adventurism of the Cold War, conscription into military service, and all of the rest of the anxiety caused by the Cold War.

I'm inclined to agree with JASKN. It seems so easy to see only the problems in the present, and to romanticize the past. History ranks among my favorite interests. I'm rarely surprised to find the grim truth about the past, no matter how the popular legend portrays it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the future is not a permissible answer, then I'm with the others who say it's now.

A family of four can live on a single income if it's willing to accept an early-60's middle class standard of living. One voice-only phone. One b&w tv. One bedroom for every two household members. One car. No air conditioning (and none in the car either). Maybe a dishwasher, probably a garbage disposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean? When was the American federal government at its best? When was government in general at its best?

When was American culture at its best? When was the American economy at its best?

When was the so called "average American" at their best (although this one is still a pretty vague question, unless you come up with a decent way to define "average American")?

When was the nation as a whole at its best?

When were living conditions in America at their best?

If you're asking "When was the nation as a whole at its best?", then the answer is either "right at the founding", or "late in the 19th century". The founding of the United States was the greatest achievement in North American history, and one of the greatest achievements in the history of mankind. So that would be the obvious answer.

But founding something based on an ideal is one thing, and actually making it work, in a sustained way, is another. I think late in the 19th century, they were able to deal with some very major problems, like the civil war (and the divided political environment leading up to it), rapid (and therefor somewhat chaotic) economic development, and large scale immigration (also a source of instability), without severely compromising on the Founders' ideas of a limited government (that has to abide by rules as it attempts to keep the peace in a divided nation). How hard that is to do is evidenced by the fact that future generations failed to do it, and just allowed the government to ignore most of those pesky rules.

If you mean something else, please specify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by "America"? 

This is somewhat important because the standard of "best" primarily depends upon WHAT you mean by America. (below I will take America to be a relationship between the individuals and the government in the geographical area defined by America)

 

We most certainly have the most "goodies", but they are NOT attributable to "America" of today as such, they are attributable to the private individuals who are  living in all relatively free societies over the past 2 centuries.  The products made possible by those freedoms (the level of which varies over time and country to country) are effects whose causes are found backwards throughout history and are built on previous advances and governments which allow some form of production and innovation, etc.  ANY thing of today will find most of its roots in the America, Europe, and other western nations of the past leading up to today.  So IMHO, America of the present day is not the cause of technical, medicinal, mechanical Goodies, although it is still helping to build these for tomorrow. These have been on the rise everywhere since the enlightenment (science) and the industrial revolution, and the rise of freedoms in the west.

BUT more importantly, "goodies" are not the primary Good of a society. 

Goodies are made possible by the primary Good of living in a proper society which is freedom and the protection of individual rights.  Goodies are not the ends of a proper society, they are merely the result of one.  Goodies are not an end which justifies the freedom as a means, freedom constitutes the ends which happens to make goodies possible. 

 

iPhones would have been impossible in a totalitarian state, but even if they were possible, a slave with a State provided iphone is still a slave.

 

As such, IMHO, the standard for when America was at its best MUST be an assessment of the moral/political conditions of the society primarily as demonstrated by the relationship between the individuals and the those who call themselves and/or are elected to the role of the government.  To the extent that relationship is closer to one whereby the individual has his/her rights protected by the government, is  not violated by the government (hence the government has no other role), that government's relationship to the individual is closer to that which is proper and the individual is closer to living in a free and proper society. 

 

America was at it's BEST when it was the CLOSEST to having a proper government protecting the rights of free individuals.

 

I am not a historian and I cannot guess when this was true.  It is also a highly complex issue as various times in history various kinds of freedoms were greater or lesser for various people.

At various times in history there was slavery for some, economic freedom for others, forced segregation, denial of the vote for women, but at other times anti-trust laws were not in force, at other times income tax did not exist and neither did conscription, there is war on the so-called rich of today but there is also crony lobbying, at other times there were sex crimes, and I believe polygamy is still outlawed in places?...  patents once were a property right, now they simply franchises, and ideas of eminent domain and takings are much different today from the ideas of the sanctity of property of the past... 

If I had to summarize the chaos, economic freedom is likely at an all time low, whereas social freedoms are at an all time high.  Rule of law and free speech are probably not at the best point in history.

It really is quite an impossible choice, but if I were a mote, told I would be given the chance to live as a human in any decade repeatedly throughout my entire life, but what person I would be (straight, gay, woman, man, black, tall, disabled, blind, etc.) and where I would be born were completely random, the 80s under Reagan seems like a good bet.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America's "best" is determined by reference to its adherence to the principles that gave it birth: individual rights and limited government.

America abandoned the principle of limited government on March 2, 1824, when the Supreme Court decided the case of Gibbons v. Ogden.  In that case, the Supreme Court enunciated the principle that, in determining what powers the government has, the intentions and arguments of those who wrote the Constitution are to be ignored; the only limit to government power is to be found in the bare, uninterpreted words of the Constitution.  As we see today, that limit is essentially no limit at all.

America never implemented the principle of individual rights.  The Constitution placed limits on what the federal government could do but, as initially written, placed few limits on what the state governments could do.  The states routinely violated individual rights, most notably with respect to slavery, but in numerous other ways.  They mostly operated on statist principles, with the individual subordinate to state and local governments.

In theory, the 14th Amendment brought the states to heel, requiring them to respect the rights putatively protected by the Constitution.  However, the Supreme Court did not use the kind of reasoning it had used with respect to the powers; instead of taking the Constitution at its word with respect to rights, it routinely and uniformly subordinated the rights protected by the Constitution to the needs of the government.  It still does this.  A right that can be abrogated at "need" is not a right respected by the government; it is, in the eyes of the government, a privilege that can be modified or revoked as it sees fit.

America has never lived up to its founding principles.  Its legal system, which defines its actual principles, has always been hostile to those founding principles.

America, the land of individual rights and limited government, does not exist and has never existed; the question, as asked, has no answer.  The closest thing to an answer is "the American Revolution", that period where people put their blood, treasure, and reputation on the line to the service of liberty.  Nothing since comes close to the America that should have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Invictus2017 said:

the question, as asked, has no answer

So you think the American government has been exactly the same degree of bad, for every second of its entire existence? You don't see a qualitative difference between let's say the Jefferson administration, the Lincoln administration, the FDR admin, or the Obama admin? No answer to the question which was best?

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see any sensible way to drop context and avoid the question “best in what respect?”. JASKN is absolutely correct about the numerous ways in which modern life is really excellent, and it’s only getting better (though not as good as the future is likely to be, which may give you motivation to continue existing). As for the quality of life from the political perspective, I don’t see the argument that things have gotten net better or worse: some things are better, some things are worse. There is a mistaken view that early America was a rights-respecting utopia, which stems from identifying “America” with “the federal government”: IMO the correct analysis is that “America” is the sum of governments within the US.

Initially, the Bill of Rights did not protect the individual from state governments, it only applied to the federal government. Governmental violations of individual rights were more carried out by states, rather than the federal government. An example of that is the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. The state of New York granted a statutory monopoly to Livingston and Fulton (then tranferred to Ogden) to navigate between New York and New Jersey, and therefore Gibbons was prevented by law from competing: New York violated Gibbons’ rights. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that this intrusion on Gibbons’ rights was unconstitutional, in direct violation of the Commerce Clause. Nowadays, the Commerce Clause is most likely to be used as a justification for restricting business, not as it was used in Gibbons to liberate business from improper state intrusion.

Economic rights of individuals have suffered over time: but non-economic rights of individuals have improved. There has been a steady improvement of procedural protections against government violations of rights,  for example it is no longer legal to beat a suspect until they confess; it is now pointless to illegally search a suspect’s property because the fruits of such a search cannot be used as evidence. Homosexuality is no longer a crime, slavery, the greatest evil, was made unconstitutional, laws banning abortion are now recognized as unconstitutional. People other than white male property owners are now allowed to determine what form of government that will have. While the current situation with blacks in the legal system is far from ideal, it is vastly better than it was even as late as the 60’s.

You can detect second-to-second differences just by tracking Supreme Court rulings. Sessions v. Dimaya (April 17) was good news, Oil v. Greens (April 24) was bad news. Focusing on the big picture and not hair-splitting down to the weekly level, I see no argument that at a net political level things have changed. Observing that we now have income tax where we didn't used to is a context-dropping non-argument that things are politically worse; observing that we no longer have slavery is the same kind of non-argument that things are politically better. With no actual full-context argument regarding the political situation, I have to rely on the obvious fact that I can post this from my phone, and not have to use a feather to write on parchment, and hand deliver this to some place where others could gather to read my words, if they were ever in that place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2018 at 12:28 PM, DavidOdden said:

An example of that is the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. The state of New York granted a statutory monopoly to Livingston and Fulton (then tranferred to Ogden) to navigate between New York and New Jersey, and therefore Gibbons was prevented by law from competing: New York violated Gibbons’ rights. The Supreme Court correctly ruled that this intrusion on Gibbons’ rights was unconstitutional, in direct violation of the Commerce Clause.

That is not an accurate description of the ruling of Gibbons.  The Supreme Court ruled that the structure of the Constitution required that only the federal government could regulate interstate commerce.  This meant that a state law affecting interstate commerce, such as the monopoly at issue, violated the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.  The monopoly was voided, not to protect Gibbons' rights, but the protect the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.  Gibbons didn't make such monopolies illegal, it just said that only the federal government could grant them.

Rather than protecting individual rights, Gibbons sanctioned an expansive definition of the federal government's powers and directly paved the way for today's ever expanding government.  It was not a win for freedom, it was a win for totalitarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just created this thread because I wanted to see if I could get an inkling of what Donald Trump means by "Make America Great Again".  It is bizarre to me because it seems like he is asking someone to talk about slavery and how evil the U.S. is.  He was probably talking about the period right before Obama but before Obama there was a recession.

So what made America great was it's ideals but the people didn't abide by them?   How pointless those ideals seem to the average person.  Might as well not have them at all?  Other countries ridded themselves of slavery without the U.S. constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Donald means great for himself and those who support him.  He's a student of Norman Vincent Peal's, The Power of Positive Thinking, which continues to influence his actions.  On the upside, he will seek to remove restrictions on liberty like individual mandates because that increases his freedom to do as he pleases.  However, it's a unilateral view of liberty at best, that also seeks to restrict by mandate the actions of others who impede his pursuit of happiness.

Make America great for the powerful who are entitled to do as they please with impunity, and secure from those who don't know their place and get in the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A most cynical summation. For all his faults of method, is this how Trump's purpose and goals are seen? It has been clearly the sidelined ordinary American whom your President has recognised and upheld over the Leftist intellectual elitists, or 'the powerful".

Are Objectivists moving to the skeptical Left?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dadmonson said:

He was probably talking about the period right before Obama but before Obama there was a recession.

It's hard for a rational observer to accept anything out of Trump's mouth as his honest views, but, to the extent his campaign platform had meaning, he was referring to the time before the Clinton presidency.

His (supposed) gripe with American economic policy was mainly the trade agreements that promote a global marketplace. Just like the far left (the likes of Bernie Sanders) he blames the job losses that are an inevitable part of economic change and technological progress on supposedly "unfair trade".

 He also brought up the post-Reagan over-regulation and taxation, from time to time (and occasionally latched onto Reaganomics, just to placate economic conservatives), but it was mainly anti-globalism rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

It has been clearly the sidelined ordinary American whom your President has recognised and upheld over the Leftist intellectual elitists

First off, "ordinary American" is demagogy, plain and simple. No point in even addressing it further. So, that aside, Trump is certainly "upholding" a specific segment of the population (not any more or less ordinary than any other segment) at the expense of others. But it's not really the segments you're describing (describing vaguely, on purpose).

For instance, he's not upholding steel producers at the expense of Leftist intellectual elitists, he's upholding them at the expense of the individual rights of manufacturers who buy steel, all consumers who buy their products, and everyone who suffers from the inevitable retaliation to his tariffs.

He's not upholding low skill American workers at the expense of college professors and Liberal politicians, he's upholding them at the expense of the rights (and lives) of economic migrants seeking to escape the misery of socialist hell holes. He's not upholding white nationalists at the expense of college professors, he's upholding them at the expense of 99.9% innocent Muslims and Hispanics.

And so on and so forth. Whenever he "upholds" a neglected group, he does so by introducing laws that violate other people's rights, and almost never by eliminating laws that violate the rights of the people he's "upholding".

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Are Objectivists moving to the skeptical Left? 

Objectivists are, as they always have been, opposed to both the collectivist right and the collectivist left. There is a third option your false alternative is seeking to obfuscate: individual rights. Objectivists are staying on that side.

And Trump is just as far away from the side of individual rights as Obama was. Even further, if he ever gets around to implementing some of his deeply destructive, rights violating campaign promises.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2018 at 12:28 PM, DavidOdden said:

There has been a steady improvement of procedural protections against government violations of rights,

I read that and....I couldn't answer it, not without a whole bunch of expletives.  I gave it a few days, and I still have to answer rudely: What rock are you living under?

The exclusionary rule has been subjected to a variety of restrictions in the past few decades, not least of which is that the cops routinely lie in order to hide their misconduct.  Cops rarely suffer if those lies are uncovered.

Ditto the Miranda rule. 

The third party doctrine has gutted Fourth Amendment protections. 

Habeas corpus has been rendered largely ineffective by statute and by the courts' indifference to convicts' rights.

The right to counsel, the right that one must have if one is properly invoke the rest of one's rights in a prosecution, has been eviscerated by procedural restrictions and by the lack of and low quality of public defenders. 

The Speedy Trial clause won't get you a speedy trial, not unless you think a year is "speedy", and the mandated dismissal rarely happens even then.  There are defendants who have been held without trial -- or lawyers -- for years.

The right to a public trial --- the public's right to that public trial -- has been largely nullified by the near universal coercing of defendants to plead guilty. 

The grand jury is no longer anything like a protection from government abuses of power, instead serving largely as a rubber stamp for prosecutors' decisions to charge. 

Prosecutors routinely charge crimes that don't fit the facts, withhold Brady evidence, and lie to opposing counsel and the courts, and when they're caught, they almost never suffer consequence. 

The government can take your property and give it to another private entity, with no more than a declaration that it will serve some public use, and pay you only what the government deems appropriate. 

Government can take your property, claiming a connection to a crime -- without any evidence that the crime happened -- and you have to prove the negative in order to get your property back.  Oh, and you have to pay for the privilege.

Police routinely illegally stop, search, assault, rape, and murder, and rarely suffer any real consequence.  Police still confiscate the phones of those who record their misconduct, also without real consequence.

Malpracticing defense attorneys can be sued, but only in the rare case that their victims' convictions are overturned. 

Persons arbitrarily declared sex offenders suffer tight restrictions on where they may live, work, and go to school --- and these restrictions can be changed at any time, in defiance of the Ex Post Facto clause.  The supremes have declared that this is not punitive, even when it has the effect of preventing people from working or having a home.

Prisoners are supposed to retain their constitutional rights, but the supremes have declared that these rights can be abrogated at what amounts to the whim of their jailors.  Even when the courts have determine that prisoners' rights are being violated, they bascially just sit back and wait for the violators to stop violating -- sometimes for decades.

I can go on for quite a while longer, citing examples of the lack of procedural protections for people.  I haven't, for example, even touched on the immigration courts where, for example, children -- not teens, children, are required to defend their requests for asylum without aid of lawyers.

So, no, our procedural protections have not been improving.  By any informed measure, they have been steadily degraded, and are now laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Economic policies and individual rights -- yes, but are they in any worse shape than with previous incumbents? Not so I've noticed, Nicky. How about returning to the fundamental approach? Proper rights, capitalism, politics can only be consequences of a sea-change in a culture's ethics. Never possibly by unilateral implementation by any president. Trump apparently refers more to and holds in esteem the model of your Constitution - and further - is effectively, in deed and word, announcing that it is right and good for America and Americans to place her and their own self-interests above whoever makes claim upon them. He doesn't have to be an intellectual to see what has worked best, i.e. individual self-responsibility. If he did no more than bring his influence to bear on this, it would be plenty, and a move to individual rights, etc.. Trump's  resistance against the seeping Progressivism presuming upon the US's sacrifice and duty, which other countries (and some American citizens) have long taken for granted, comes in the nick of time. A tipping point is arriving, I think. I hope I'm not being overdramatic in my opinion that the semi-free world depends on what happens there within a short time span. Although not enjoying the lack of independent standards by other countries, too reliant on the USA, as you may be too. (You could be wishing like me that everyone minded their own business, but that ship has sailed). But every supporter or opponent of freedom knows, at least tacitly, that the USA and its vast successes are uniquely the product of moral ideas. Many governments and intellectuals will be given a boost to see those ideas appear to fail, and are gloating at your divisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Trump's  resistance against the seeping Progressivism presuming upon the US's sacrifice and duty, which other countries (and some American citizens) have long taken for granted

Nonsense. The US has a long history of being a force for good in the world, and it's in its self interest to continue to be that. It may not always be done out of well articulated rational selfishness, but that doesn't change the fact that US foreign policy is contributing to a more free and more prosperous world, and that is to the benefit of the American people.

Trump doesn't get that, because he doesn't understand what "good" even is. He has no principles. His idea of good leadership is what thugs like Putin are doing: a cynical, nationalistic drive to raise your country over others, without any regard to principles or decency. That's why he has expressed admiration for Putin.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dadmonson said:

...  ...  get an inkling of what Donald Trump means by "Make America Great Again"....

You cannot analyse Trump's language in this way. I doubt he has a very informed view about the various phases of American history. He detects the emotion of his audience and knows how to reflect the right attitude back. He's reflecting a feeling, among a large number of voters, that things are not right. If they aren't right, but they used to be...that means we must "make America great again".

Similarly, the typical Trump voter does not have a precise view about the best period in America, or even something like "three best phases". They think of it more generically: that things aren't going the way I thought they would; things are worse than I thought they would be; therefore... they should be better. Since the voter based earlier expectations on something, they want that back. 

The essential fact is:   post-Great Recession has seen middle and lower class stagnation. "Make America Great Again" just means "stop this stagnation". Mexicans, Muslims and Indian programmers are convenient scapegoats, but the essential issue is an underlying feeling of dejection because they were living a lie and the lie is revealed, and the Democrats are telling them that the answer is more of the same, while Trump is pointing out specific scapegoats and saying he'll make America great again.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

He doesn't have to be an intellectual to see what has worked best,

He doesn't, but to be president he does. A president, to be half decent, needs to be read on history, be engaged in intellectual history, to read books, and all sorts of things that require intellectual engagement. So when he says "make America great again", he is not referring to any intellectual appeal. It is an appeal to emotion. Trump is a powerhouse of rhetoric and communication, but it does not follow that he necessarily esteems things he talks about.

Specifically to the question in the OP, I would say the Gilded Age from 1880 to 1900. I picked this because it was an extremely capitalistic era in American history, slavery was abolished, the west was developing, railroads made mass communication possible. The biggest issue in this era of course was the treatment of blacks in the South. There was extreme racism and violence, and apparently the federal government did little to intervene.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Donald's view of history is filtered through the same prism of "positive thought" that his view of the future is; it's not  about what was, but what ought to have been. In one respect he is making America great again by testing every check and balance put in place to safeguard against tyranny, and in the process exposing every weakness. However, he remains less troublesome than his supporters, and will likely be viewed more generously than whoever rises in his wake.

Edited by Devil's Advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2018 at 1:09 AM, Nicky said:

Nonsense. The US has a long history of being a force for good in the world, and it's in its self interest to continue to be that. It may not always be done out of well articulated rational selfishness, but that doesn't change the fact that US foreign policy is contributing to a more free and more prosperous world, and that is to the benefit of the American people.

Trump doesn't get that, because he doesn't understand what "good" even is. He has no principles. His idea of good leadership is what thugs like Putin are doing: a cynical, nationalistic drive to raise your country over others, without any regard to principles or decency. That's why he has expressed admiration for Putin.

 

"Principles". Well, call me crazy, but I prefer a president who implicitly recognizes: "You did build that!" 

That is principled. I was early in naming Trump a pragmatist, but have been rethinking this - he shows an inconsistency about ideas, admittedly. 

I am well aware of the nature of cynics, as leaders or otherwise, and I have yet to notice a Putinish level of cynicism in Trump, regarding the USA, anyway. He displays a grasp of values ("American exceptionalism", barely understood by Barack Obama, going on his remarks). 

Perhaps call him a "seat-of-his-pants", and even a "sense of life" president - just save me from leader-"intellectuals" of a certain sort. "Principles" are properly the preserve of free citizens, less of their leaders.

I really don't believe you have seen how the USA has lately slipped in many outsiders' perceptions. (Not the Left, obviously). It makes sense to me, if you view that building it back to its former status, peacefully making its moral presence known to the world again, is "raising your country over others". Besides, I take it you are for rational selfishness.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Well, call me crazy, but I prefer a president who implicitly recognizes: "You did build that!" 

I don't think he does, not in the philosophical sense. We're talking here about using history to recognize principles, of which at least Obama understood some of. But that's really besides the point, the important point is that understanding history is necessary.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

just save me from leader-"intellectuals" of a certain sort.

This looks like anti-intellectualism. As if having an intellectual understanding invalidates someone's ideas, and that the lack of  intellectual-ness in Trump is somehow a virtue.

What do you think? When do you think America was at its best?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eioul, 

In reply to your last, I won't attempt an answer. On US history where my knowledge is sketchy, I'll be better informed by well-versed opinions from you and others. (I should explain, my partial understanding of 'things American' has been from about 50 years of "cultural" intake - in all fields: its popular culture, scientific, business, politics, arts, etc. etc. and knowing some Americans, - and by reading at least a thousand American novels, in every variety - any good or great fiction is a useful inductive source of material I feel, about the places, activities, prominent ideas, events, conflicts, types of people and created individuals. Capped of course, from Rand where I learned comprehensively to appreciate the abstract guiding principles of the US).

Clearly, in this discussion it emerges that I have a lower expectation from leaders than do others here. I am opposed to and wary of "leaders" anyway, intellectual or not, and think their Executive powers, everywhere in the world are excessive. (Even in the USA and its superior system of government). My low expectation is best summed up by that adage that the right man/woman for the job of President wouldn't want or take it. (Being a little facetious, can you imagine a President Galt...?)

While I'm exploring pure theory for a moment, I'll take the opportunity to insert a reminder of Rand's words which struck me very early on:

"Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally *forbidden*; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally *permitted*." (CUI: Appendix)

Back in reality, you are nowhere near there yet, and I'm never going to see it here. However, that statement is the standard to hold in mind, I think, of what a severely delimited government actually is. In it the president is not required to be "intellectual", as such, in fact that could be a detraction from his job. His task as chief Civil Servant is simply protectionist of the rights of all the citizens of a country. 

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×