The Objectivist in power would need a job to do. He or she would need to: (1) protect the nation from foreign invaders, (2) keep the nation lawful, and to a lesser extent (3) ensure that courts remain able to function.

Hello DB,
Indeed. Yes a trustee. Also, "conservative (in the literal sense and not a political sense)." is an important distinction most do not appreciate.
Good comment.
Regards,
O.A.

None needed.

Paid Vacations?LOL

True...they are not leaders...we do not follow them, I doubt the rats would either without a pipe...maybe there was "Mary Jane" in that pipe?!?!?!

Trustees is on the mark!

Txs. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments on "leaders". That is a particularly repulsive word and concept to me.

sheesh my auto-correct makes me look like a moron. :D I should mind it more. Apologies.

True enough AJ, and txs for your input on this Post.

It was interesting to me that Adams could so easily deal with his defense of the British soldiers and still be so admired by the founding generation. Not so true today.

Txs Temlakos; doesn't deserve a downvote. Interesting point about Objectivist prosecutors.

There are some jobs that should never be given to the person that wants it.

Only speaking of the species sl. :)

Good Herb. Hopefully a very short "period of time" so as not to interfere with the truly important aspects of life.

Very good k. Txs. Are you sure "3 months" might not be too long.

Txs unitedic; Well thought out and expressed. Particularly "must abide by the same laws as all citizens".

Txs db; I like the "not looking for brilliant" as well as "Trustee". The idea of elected politicians as "Leaders" has always repulsed me, even before I met (reluctantly) and talked with several of them.

Prof; interesting point about the founders regard of governmental service. A part of Jefferson's campaign for the Presidency was the necessity of not appearing to want the job and to recruit others, particularly related to newspapers of the day and others in government that would push for "drafting" Jefferson to the campaign.

Not sure I follow all of that, but txs carl.

Txs Abaco. Good word--"repulsive".

Adams helped pen the Constitution. Before that he was the lawyer who represented the soldiers in the Boston Massacre (and has them freed). I trust he had his reasons at that volatile and formulation juncture on this country's history. That said, I do not trust the future generations since his time to do the same things today. Jefferson was a political rival, he was also disappointed that Adams was the second president over him. I do see Jefferson's point and agree with them. But circumstances at that time afford me the benefit of the doubt, particularly when the Framers, those who fought in the Revolution and constructed our founding documents, were the key characters.

Txs OA.

free; I understand the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist competition argument. But at it's base lies voluntary compliance and competing/territorial enforcement.

I won't repeat all the arguments against such approaches other than I agree with AR's positions.

How would, say real estate property, be deeded or otherwise have proof of ownership? If you get down to too small an area, then the deed may not be recognized as valid by those in other areas. It would seem that county level would be the smallest deeding authorities whether private of government. There are a lot of areas for protecting the ownership of property that might be best done by government with rational laws. The protection of most property must be done by the owner. Governments usually are not allowed to interfere until the property is stolen or damaged. No one wants an official hanging around his property all the time. Some can afford private security persons but that is more for large properties. Governments not watched and checked closely are hard to get under control, but private 'governing' companies may not be much easier to control where political/cultural beliefs enter into the mix.

I was just rereading the chapter, "The Fallacy of Anarchism" in Isabel Paterson's "The God of the machine" which ends in a kind of warning for the many today who want a leader.
"When the word leader, or leadership, returns to current use, it connotes a relapse into barbarism. For a civilized people, it is the most ominous word in any language."
That is happening throughout the world today, including the USA starting to get into the act leading to the present political situation with promises of near barbarousness, at least in writing from seemingly more sources. In a rational world the desire for leadership should have died out just by the history of the twentieth century. If barbarism, then wholesale death leading to private property mainly some farming and keeping animal herds.

free; agreed.

AJ; I'm a little surprised that you agree with those 4 acts making up the Alien and Sedition Acts, but really amazed that you support the intent of the acts and how Adams acted on them. From my study, admittedly from Jefferson's perspective, Adams imprisoned men that were critical of him and his actions as President. And the Acts weren't just "put away" after serving a "needed purpose." Among Jefferson's first actions upon being sworn in, he pardoned and released the men that Adams had imprisoned and then led the effort to have the Acts repealed, and that had been a major plank of his campaign to gain the Presidency.

I count Adams' actions, along with Washington's/Hamilton's use of Federal troops against the Whiskey Rebellion in eastern Penn., and Jay's settlement agreement with the British for reparations as the beginnings of the end of the Constitution. Of the three, I consider Adams' the worst.