@chaosrob
Your attempt to point out flaws is, itself, flawed.
1. The US Constitution, as written, strictly delimits the powers of government. If you know anything at all about it you have to know that. The fact that we have abrogated it and ignored the 9th and 10th Amendments in no way detracts from what it does say about “limited government”.
2. Of course the President doesn’t “make” law (according to the Constitution, anyway), but as the executive he does much to set an agenda for Congress, he has powers as the executive to enforce (and in modern days, to make) regulations, if not “laws”, he enters into treaties (which the Senate may or may not ratify) that make various national commitments and he makes appointments to the bench of the Federal and Supreme Court that can set the tone of the judiciary for decades after he leaves office.
3. The President is the executive for “the government”, and is responsible for “the best interests” (we won’t quibble over what that means) for “the government”, which is nominally elected to represent “the citizens”. One of my favorite corrections about discussions of presidential limitations is that the president doesn’t “run the country” (dammit), he “runs the government”. There is a world of difference, if only people would realize it.
In any case, and to respond to @Qingu as well, I never said – if you’ll read what I actually wrote and stop trying to read my mind instead – that the President (or the government) cannot be collectivist. All I said was that John Galt wouldn’t run for or accept the job of President in the first place, and that he wouldn’t be a collectivist.
Reading comprehension here seems to be a bit worse than usual today.