[dmk23]

It is an excellent illustration of why the powers of government should be limited.

Perhaps the most convincing argument for libertarian worldview to come out of the pop-culture.

Who would want 'House of Cards' politicians to run their lives?

[thenmar]

Yep, the world really is that simple - abolish government and things will get better. It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems.

[10feet]

To be fair, this guy did talk about politicians power being limited, not abolishing the government. There are clearly good things we should take out of libertarianism, which is why most people join these fringe movements.

[ihsw]

Please stop being facetious, libertarianism != anarchism.

Libertarianism recognizes the value of governance, don't get confused, but it asserts that certain individual rights as inalienable.

[maxharris]

Calling for limits on the powers, scope and size of government is not at all the same as abolishing government.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but on your view, limiting the government's ability to spy on its own citizens without warrants is tantamount to an anarchist's topsy-turvydom in which people are free to kill and steal from one another with impunity.

Is this what you mean?

[dpatru]

> It's a shame so many people don't realize how easy it is to fix all of their problems.

Libertarianism maintains that government is not supposed to solve all your problems. That is the job of the free market: voluntary associations and mutually-beneficial transactions. Government's role is to secure the liberties that underlie the free market.

When politicians offer to "solve" people's problems, they are usually offering to steal for their constituents. "Don't have enough money for healthcare, retirement, food, housing, education, [insert your particular problem here]? Vote for me and I'll take it from your countrymen by force of government and give it to you." Voters for such politicians are thieves by proxy. It's a shame that people resort to thievery to solve their problems. But it's not a mystery as to why abolishing such a system would be unpopular.

[AlexEatsKittens]

I can't tell if you're joking.

[sliverstorm]

But right there is the counterexample. Who wouldn't want Jed Bartlet to have power?

[protomyth]

Well, me. I loved the show (yes, even later seasons[1]) much like I loved "The American President"[2], but would vote against the man in a heartbeat. They do some pretty despicable things while in power[3]. Plus, I notice we end the series in a war.

Re-watch the series and look at what a citizen of this land would get from the White House. It is not a great picture of an administration we would want.

Of course, no TV administration is going to be a good thing. Drama requires conflict and over 7 seasons a lot of rules get broke in a heroic manner. In real life, we call that abuse of executive privilege.

The only thing I can say is President Santos and his education plan is worse for every rural area and budget.

1) Although in later seasons, most of the writers wrote the Republicans as villain of the week instead of honorable adversaries

2) Martin Sheen is amazing in that too

3) not to mention the whole lying about the President's health and never mind the Vice President

[msandford]

The central issue here is one of limiting risk. It's far easier to destroy prosperity than it is to achieve it, similar to a reputation. It's less important for a good politician to be able to achieve good things than it is for a bad politician not to be able to achieve bad things.

[mapt]

The merits of the presidential system are actually a plotline in one of the episodes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLoio0Z6jLw