I know that you might jump on me with "the government should provide no services at a gunpoint, any discussion is irrelevant", but how would you rank presidents against the libertarian ideal?
I used to like Jefferson and dislike Jackson, but I have changed from then.
I find Jefferson to be more of a scared-of-anything-big kind of guy (even legitimate private big businesses) than the libertarian the right would like to believe he was.
About Jackson - I thought he was the original creator of true "mob rule" but have since read he was against stimulus during panics and did not favor government-funded internal improvements.
Thus, I generally like Washington, Jackson, and Cleveland (Cleveland denied government seeds to farmers, which I thought was quite libertarian).
Republicans who like T.R. scare me quite a bit.
Washington squashed the whiskey rebellion because he owned the largest whiskey distillery in the colonies...
Jefferson was against large corporate and banking powers. Madison and him referred to the British East India Co. as a "state within a state"
Monroe did a lot of good and was by far the best founding father president. Monroe Doctrine was written by Quincy Adams.
Jackson is decent (banking and money) other than his imperial racism. Jefferson didn't think Jackson was fit to be president, haha.
There are a few presidents during the 1800's that were decent, but i'm not looking them up now. They were good because they did nothing and that is why you don't know who they are.
Something that bothers me about libertarians is their overt support for some terrible corporations. We don't want ANY large power centers Public or Private. Just because they make a fortune, doesn't mean they can't
Also, does anyone else think that in 2000 years, if our monuments are still there, will our presidents be looked at as Gods? Lincoln is sitting like Saturn, Jefferson is in a Roman Rotunda, Washington is an Egyptian obelisk (not to mention the "Apotheosis of Washignton" in the capital rotunda...
Eating Propaganda
What do you mean i don't care how your day was?!
This does not seem very libertarian to me.
Coolidge was probably the least bad. If I was alive in 1927, listening to a brand new Armstrong Hot Seven side and with Coolidge as president, I would've been pretty damn optimistic about the course of the 20th century.
Obama is my favorite president.
Aristippus:Coolidge was probably the least bad. If I was alive in 1927, listening to a brand new Armstrong Hot Seven side and with Coolidge as president, I would've been pretty damn optimistic about the course of the 20th century.
That actually reminds me. I think I've got an answer: William Henry Harrison.
I'd have to say John Tyler (even though he raised the tariff and may have gotten rid of Van Buren's Independent Treasury System, the latter I'm not sure about though) and Zachary Taylor.
Jefferson, Jackson, Van Buren, Cleveland, and Harding were good, although Jefferson and Jackson just barely.
Coolidge was okay, but the radio regulations he signed into law sucked as do all regulations. He also brutally enforced prohibition, resulting in ~10k deaths on one Christmas Eve.
I think Arthur may have been okay, but I believe that he gave Union veterans too many pensions.
Grant would be considered a good president if he hadn't invoked martial law on southerners and if he hadn't created the DoJ. Due to his infringement on civil liberties, I'd rank him as okay.
Pierce was okay, but he wasn't perfect. Fillmore was okay, but he wasn't perfect either. Buchanan ran up deficits and eventually came out against secession, plus he signed the morrill tariff and sent the military on some adventures IIRC.
All the Presidents I didn't mention sucked though.
It should also be noted that Jefferson probably hated Native Americans as much as Jackson. He proposed Indian removal himself, and the LA Purchase was kind of a precursor to the Trail of Tears. He planned to drive them into debt through some treaties and to drive them into so much debt that their tribal lands would have to be taken away. His draft of the Articles of Confederation was also very harsh against Native Americans, unlike the final draft by Dickinson.
Jefferson could've been a much better President. I'd say a major difference between Jefferson and Jackson is that Jackson was very principled and Jefferson was not very principled at all.
I like presidents that aren't mythologized by the public school system (so Arthur, Fillmore, Tyler, etc.). This means that they "didn't do enough" while in office. Obviously most of this class of presidents were most likely hacks of the first order, but I like the fact that nobody knows who they are.
Cleveland was probably the closest thing to a libertarian that we have had.
Worst presidents: Lincoln, Wilson, Grant, FDR, Bush 2, Obama, John Adams, Hoover, Truman. I don't think my list could be criticized for recency, I just think the US's statism has just increased over time.
Jackson is decent (banking and money) other than his imperial racism.
This is one of those weird psychology things in librtarianism that interests me a bit, I think someone else pointed it out on another thread (about veganism maybe?)
Against banking, worth considering to mention in spite of the mass slaughter of Native Americans. Not saying you are guilty of this, but it does kind of poke it's head up here and there in some permutation or another... kind of weird.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
As an anarchist, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Bush Jr. are all among my favorites. They've done much to bring the state to self-destruction ;)
Jackson is decent (banking and money) other than his imperial racism. This is one of those weird psychology things in librtarianism that interests me a bit, I think someone else pointed it out on another thread (about veganism maybe?) Against banking, worth considering to mention in spite of the mass slaughter of Native Americans. Not saying you are guilty of this, but it does kind of poke it's head up here and there in some permutation or another... kind of weird.
Does one weight out the effect of the other? Jackson is on the $20, why?
Does one weight out the effect of the other?
Logically, no - all propositions are of equal value.
On a psych level though, I would think more people would be put off by the fact that some dude mass murdererd a race of people, and not concern themselves with whatever the hell he did with a bank - if they actually cared about the statement. You put him (by the fact that you listed him) as a president worth mentioning due to his banking policy, in spite of his genocidal tendencies.
I think this is just a "liberterian culture" curiosity thing. I bet if there are reasons behind this it could be interesting. I would not be surprised if many "principled" libertarians" (which I am in no way "principled") would not be happy with some of the conclusions drawn.
On a psych level though, I would think more people would be put off by the fact that some dude mass murdererd a race of people, and not concern themselves with whatever the hell he did with a bank - if they actually cared about the statement. You put him (by the fact that you listed him) as a president worth mentioning due to his banking policy, in spite of his genocidal tendencies. I think this is just a "liberterian culture" curiosity thing. I bet if there are reasons behind this it could be interesting. I would not be surprised if many "principled" libertarians" (which I am in no way "principled") would not be happy with some of the conclusions drawn.
So what the fuck is more "libertarian" watching out for one group or all groups?
also, from your statemnt you reek of ignorance of banking history. Why is Jackson on the $20 bill?
because central banking effects everyone not just ONE group of people. Does that make sense?
no:
a) Everything effects everyone, this is part of the market mentslity
b) if you want to meta put of this... things only effect things that say they are effected by them
c) As I pointed out I was thinking in the way of a generic psychology mindset - not logic, not economics, not gibberish morality
also, from your statemnt you reek of ignorance of banking history.
before I get specific:
a) Whatever you say make sure you realize that correlation =/= causation
b) Most history you bring up at this point is worldly and pre Jackson
c) I am talking oncae again about psychology, not morality or economics
d) If you do not take into consideration that your knowledge of esoteric history and ecomomicscan be ignored and not in the radar of concern with most peoples sociological psychology, you have the wrong sociological model.
Why is Jackson on the $20 bill?
Because those in power of printing 20 dollar bills put him there, everything else is speculative beyond the science of human action. Either that or...custom
P.S. If you decide to resopd and get vulgar or snarky with me, I will no longer again respond to you, take that as you will.
a) Everything effects everyone, this is part of the market mentslity - Not true. if it was then correlation/causation wouldn't be a thing, yo.
b) if you want to meta put of this... things only effect things that say they are effected by them - Huh? Is english your first language?
c) As I pointed out I was thinking in the way of a generic psychology mindset - not logic, not economics, not gibberish morality - no you weren't. you have no idea what you are talking about logic, economics, and morality all play into psychology....if they didn't then psychology would be chaos and nothing relevent could ever be ascertained from it.
a) Whatever you say make sure you realize that correlation =/= causation There was enough evidence. even more now.
b) Most history you bring up at this point is worldly and pre Jackson - Huh?
c) I am talking oncae again about psychology, not morality or economics - again, you weren't - logic, economics, and morality all play into psychology....if they didn't then psychology would be chaos and nothing relevent could ever be ascertained from it.
d) If you do not take into consideration that your knowledge of esoteric history and ecomomicscan be ignored and not in the radar of concern with most peoples sociological psychology, you have the wrong sociological model. - try and make sense with your words. don't be scared to use commas.
you are trying to deny the fact that central banking is more important than a tribe of indians.
Now, i might sound like a dick saying that, but it is true. Just like gay marriage and abortion aren't real issues, literally. They are just choices people may or may not make. They effect 1% of the population so why should we all care about it? My reasoning is local governments to deal with it (or none)
"Because those in power of printing 20 dollar bills put him there"
that is the most uninformed thing you could have said. Google it.
logic, economics, and morality all play into psychology....
You trying to look into psychology is a joke.
and yea ill get shitty with idiots on the internet. so go feel proud that you are sticking up for minority groups while disparaging the real issues that effect everyone regardless of what color their skin is.
Grover Cleveland FTW.
Central banking actually didn't affect slaves or the native americans who couldn't use banks. A massacre on behalf of expanding the empire is not something I would consider libertarian at all, and to hell what he thought of banks. This is more than a case of a bigoted president. This is a president that committed genocide.
Dismissing the genocide of an entire people by saying that central banking affects everyone while the condemnation of genocide and removal of indigineous people is "looking out for one group" is such an ignorant and misanthropic statement that I can't even begin to respond. It is my sincere hope that tonight you choke in your sleep while having a nightmare about Creek indians scalping you.
Jefferson was nothing more than a terrified and spineless idealist who contradicted almost every one of his beliefs. He, like every other president, could appeal to the masses in his speeches while in his actions oppress as many people as were politically convenient.
Every president in history has simply been a power hungry psychopath that wishes to maintain what power they can while minimizing what power they must give up. Even a president who would chose to do nothing would be exercizing and legitimizing the authority of the presidency by maintaining the president's "right" to not act. Even inaction is a choice.
haha, emotional chord = struck!
i never said i endorsed it yo. so let's not put words in my mouth
and if you think that those banks accumulating power doesn't affect people because they can't use the banks, you are naive. I can't "use" the FED, but it still effects my life and everyone else. Even people who don't live here.
but yea, i'll choke in my sleep tonight. totally a caring, loving, libertarian thing to say and even think, right? What was that about hipocrasy?
And yea people trash on T Jefferson. You wouldn't be here if it wasn't for him. and i'm assuming you've never read anything about Jefferson hating himself for his "inaction." Different times = different propaganda that he grew up with.
But no, let's forget that history must be looked at in context and just push our own opinions on it to make ourselves feel like superior beings.
Our racist founding fathers were far more intelligent than the people on this board. I promise.
another thing, Jefferon, in 1767 &1769, tried to ban the import of slaves into Virginia, but the Crown shut him down. He got rid of the Indian re-education school at W&M as well.
and yea, what a revelation that power corrupts...
America wasn't an "empire" in the 1830's hahaha. But oh no, quote chomsky for me, please.
and to all of the founder hating history buffs in here, what about Monroe? Pretty sure that jefferson mentored him and look what he did, Liberia. He gave slaves (escaped) civil (court) defense and sent the africans that were "free" back to africa, which was their wish at the time. They ended up renaming their capital after him, Monrovia. Jeffesron and him would have never been elected if they didn't "pander" and there were far more motivations behind TJ's striving for the presidecny than to oppress. He wanted to help destroy the British Empire.
Em_ptySkin: But no, let's forget that history must be looked at in context and just push our own opinions on it to make ourselves feel like superior beings.
Very good insight, something that people should really remember.
Em_ptySkin:Our racist founding fathers were far more intelligent than the people on this board. I promise.
... Nuh uh....
I don't think you get how smart we are, we've read Rothbard.
... Nuh uh.... I don't think you get how smart we are, we've read Rothbard.
Even Rothbard looked up to the founders despite their flaws.
We also have to remember that a lot of the 'racism' of these figures was not necessarily based on racial superiority/inferiority, but rather a belief that individuals of the various races could not live side by side on a large scale without mass social unrest. I am not, of course, denying that many believed in a greatly significant superiority of one race over another.
Dude all I was doing was pointing out that I think there may be an eccentric cultural / personality thing with libertarians. I wasn't making an argument, I wasn't trying to make an argument, It has nothing to do with logic...it was just a generic intuitive psychologizing comment. If you think it is a joke, fine whatever.
I'll make one more pass at this. You are still making an arbitrary value statement if you think one over the other negatively effects people.
so go feel proud that you are sticking up for minority groups while disparaging the real issues that effect everyone regardless of what color their skin is.
You got me wrong. I am not sticking up for the indians, I am pointing out why some strand of libertarians are a fringe element in society who will never make a relevant difference in anything they claim to care about, in part this may be due to their psycological temperment.
Anyway, now I am done addressing you.
How terribly socialist of me to say that a massacre of native Americans is worse than a central bank. Yes, because a central bank is clearly a more intolerable denial of individual rights than murder.
Now, did I say that we should uselessly impose today's moral standards on figures that lived over one hundred years ago? No. Have I said history should not be looked at in context? No, and I would actually suggest quite the contrary.
There is no doubt that racists, sexists, murders, and other people who are morally corrupt have given out good brain food. However, people such as former presidents should not be looked upon as examples or idols. If you wish to look for examples of people resisting tyrannical government, then you can find it. You can find people resisting the US while these people were in office. My suggestion would be that we look to those who fought against tyrants instead of the tyrants themselves.
Is that adressed at me, or did you just click on me because I was the last post? If that was addressed at me I'm a bit confused as I don't disagree with you...other than maybe I wouldn't call the socialist mind set any more or less inherently desirable to have a distaste for massacre than the liberal market mind set. These political groupings tend to attract people of all stripes.
Just clicked reply because it was closest. The socialist thing was in reponses to Em_pty's assertions that I was just quoting Noam Chomsky and going off on some kind of socialist tirade, instead of thinking for a minute that I have a distatse for massacre.
On a separate note, I've noticed Em_pty Skin's posts have been disappearing, as well as some of mine. Does anyone have any idea why?
Empty Skin got banned for his trollish behavior . If the posts of yours that are missing is you trying to defend yourself against his insanity, my guess is the mods did some general clean up work on some of the threads he derailed,
If any of your posts got deleted, then it was because they were replies to Em_ptySkin's posts that were made after he had been banned.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Okay, makes sense.
The reason my posts are deleted makes sense, that is, not the banning. But it seems like enough folks have said what I would anyway.