A Criticism of the Presidency:

Representation

A Criticism of the Presidency:

Representation

              An oft levied and completely factual criticism of the presidency has been in reference to the individual in the office. This argument has been accurate for a long time. And, even if it had never been accurate, and each single president had been a Just president, the criticism that I have of the presidency would still be valid. This argument is based on the premise that no person, no matter their intentions or the office they hold, has the ability or right to make a decision that will affect another person negatively (or even positively), as defined by that person’s own subjective emphasis on what is positive and negative.

              While the individual who holds office is important and has impact on our lives, that is only true out of an outdated idea of the correct form of government. That idea is that it is possible for an individual, in an office that has direct impact on 328 million people, can in any meaningful (or even meaningless) way have knowledge of what decision will have the most positive impact on all of those people. No matter if even, somehow, 99.9% of those 328 million were positively affected, there would be over 3 million people who were harmed. One is too many.

               So how do we do this? In a logically sound world, the premise above means that there should be no individual who has any authority over another. It is a rare sight indeed, when something created on paper can be implemented into our day to day lives. What is needed is not some state of complete anarchy, but a separation. What is necessary is for our republic to separate into individual states (countries), while maintaining peace, and allowing for the interdependence of each individual state to be left to the individual states themselves – for a mutual agreement, as between sovereign nations.

              If peace under this system can be maintained and even strengthened, then it should, in line with the argument made earlier, be that the negative impact of rulers can be reduced from impacting 328 million human souls down to the individual number of every state. It is not a removal of injustice, nor should it be considered the end state, only a step towards the further reduction of injustice.

              Self-determination, at its base, is the most fundamental right of each human being on this planet – to make decisions in their own self-interests, and for whatever ends they please. This is a frightening right, as it allows for those near and around us, those filled with ill-intent, to make their wills infringe on ours. This is necessary, for nothing has ever been worthwhile when earned without a struggle. Self-determination is synonymous with struggle, earning its place as the most fundamental human right. To struggle is not to be isolated. When we bring our self-determined selves together, through a synchronicity of will, we achieve a higher purpose. Having someone, or a group of people infringe upon that right, especially when they believe they are doing what is the interests of those they will decide about, is the ultimate perversion of human will.

Reducing the say one has over another, in any form or fashion, is a step that should be taken if one ever tries to reduce the injustice in the world.