I can only give you my opinion; I'm a 'One skin, one driver' advocate.
If principles are rules and laws are rules, and if the tribe can choose principles, why can't they choose laws?
(Credit Ayn Rand, We the Living, for the following plumbers analogy.)
There is the practical matter that there is no need to choose laws, if the principles are clearly chosen. You'll notice, our constitution is a tiny, tiny document compared to the US Code. Citizens living in freedom want to mostly live their lives, not come to consensus on every nut and bolt detail of the plumbing of state. We grant the honorable responsibility of divining law from principles to those willing to accept the responsibility, we pay them adequately for that service, just like any other honorable job in the tribe, and then we get on with the business of running our lives, the economies, and the nation.
Managing the needed plumbing of state is necessary, just like plumbing is necessary. But we don't live for the plumbing, no matter how badly we need plumbing, not are we ruled by plumbers whose responsibility it is to administer, interpret, and execute law consistent with the principles that were the basis for the consent of the governed.
True enough, some plumbers mistake their position in life as emperor. This is encouraged at some of the plumbing schools, like Princeton, Yale, and Harvard, which are always waxing poetic about training 'leaders' for 'leadership' roles. They get it in their heads that their function in life is to 'run the[sic] economy.'
That is what happens with decades of elitist inbreeding.
We can and do regularly fix that.
If laws are needed and the tribe can agree on them and on how they are to be enforced, then where is the need for a special subset of the population to do any of this? How can it be argued that the tribe requires that something be done, but also requires that it only be done by a privileged few?
We all certainly have a responsibility to pay attention to what the plumbers are doing. But I think of it only as specialization; we don't all actually do the plumbing, do we? As long as the plumbing is to code(we should at least ask), I'm happy. And as long as the law is administered according to the principles we have all long been well educated in, then I don't see a pressing need to reach a 330,000,000 vote consensus on every turn of the wrench.
Where is the need for special rulers to either make or enforce rules? Why is that not the proper function of everyone?
Well, I fully agree with you. There is no need for special rulers(the self-serving fantasies at Princeton, Yale, and Harvard not withstanding.) And more, if I was emperor for a day, I would modify the means by which we arrived at our pool of candidates for state plumber. The current system has a bias, in that, the very first impetus of anyone seeking office is that they seek office, that is, they seek state power over other citizens. They are power seekers.
Why not choose our pool of candidates for office the same way we select life-and-death decision making juries? By random selection from the phone book. (The Buckley solution.) We'd choose the initial pool this way, but then we would vet them using a process similar to the current process.
All that would change would be, the elimination of the current initial bias-- the seeking of power over others. (That's a lousy way to choose state plumbers--we end up with emperor wannabees.)
Indeed, "anyone in America could be POTUS."
We would select from that pool a subset of the willing and able, and then we'd listen to their views and select honorable state plumbers tasked with the responsibility of crafting and administering law from our tribal principles(which, in my never going to happen utopia, would be based on free association and the inhibition of forced association, even by the state.)
The current system is kind of like handing the process over to two clown fraternities.