I don't think he deserves respect from libertarians because he is admired for things he did and said as of which I think are not good or didn't mean anything. For example, he is admired for being an independent but he was an independent in name only... did he not want to self identify with a party because of his issues with his image? Some say he didn't want to be president and it may be true that he did not want to be, but then why was he such a good example for Reagan? I also wonder if he did not almost cause the revolution to end as general because he was mostly concerned about his image. Finally, how much did he support the war against france or did he just participate because hamilton convinced him to? Hamilton's influence made him rather partisan, perhaps more partisan than Jefferson.
Dont get me wrong though... I don't dislike him unlike how i dislike obama because washington may have meant well for some, but didn't seem like he knew much of what he was doing... he was also seemed like someone who would've been tough enough to say no and to mean it. He was also a prisoner of war which may have unleashed his rage and I can't decide if he should be held entirely responsible for that because I know too little in regards to that.
All of that said, I'm sure that very few educated libertarians support him, but I dont know whether most respect him so I decided to ask.
He said some good stuff and did some good things, but I disrespect him for being a hypocrite in many ways (such as his brutal removal of Indians and enforcement of the "Civilized Tribes" or whatever). This relates to an old thread of mine where we were trying to find the best founder who actually preached what he stated.
Two words: Whiskey Rebellion.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
He's done more for liberty than you?
So I'm guessing you don't like 'ol George all that much if you bring up the Whiskey insurrection.
When the revolutionary war was over, Washington's troops were all mad at Congress for you know, not paying them and all, and wanted to make George king of America.
George turned them down.
So, I suppose he at least did us that boon.
Nope
Not to mention fighting that war................He would have been hanged if the had not suceeded. And if he didn't succeed where would theories of secession and liberty have been recorded elsewhere in history? Where have Vettel, Locke, and Montesquieu ever had such consideration in the forming of a state?
As far as I am concerned most of the Founders deserve to be revered. They are not ideal human gods as in Greece or Rome; they are human beings that did great things despite their flaws. At least our secular worship isn't to fictional characters and Fregeian thoughts.
"If his wit be not apt to distinguish or find differences, let him study the Schoolmen; for they are cymini sectores."
George bush Washington was ok way the fuck better than bush or 'bama... More damage was done by future presidents.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I lost 200,000 brain cells within watching 12 seconds of that video.
I gained 20 kilo of testicle muscle.
Dont know whats wrong with ya man.
Isnt it illegal to show videos of child slaves?
Nice vid.
@ kelvin silva
Oh no, you're right! I just found that out here. Oh my god...
Aristophanes: So, I suppose he at least did us that boon. Not to mention fighting that war................He would have been hanged if the had not suceeded. And if he didn't succeed where would theories of secession and liberty have been recorded elsewhere in history? Where have Vettel, Locke, and Montesquieu ever had such consideration in the forming of a state?
Not only that, but he stood up, volunteered to lead an army, and then financed the army himself, losing virtually his entire fortune during the war, though he made it back after.
In terms of libertarian theory of warfare, here is a man who raised an ad hoc army, privately financed(!), and succeeded against the greatest military power of that age.
It would be like Bill Gates financing and leading an army against the US government :P and winning.
The same guy that made the washington video:
What about jfk?
American economic policy in a nutshell.
You know, I try to find good libertarian videos to share on here, but all I can ever find are videos like this.
Its quite catchy. Theres a metal version of the song.
Yeah well I honestly can't get it out of my head. Along with this song.
This.
if youve watched jackass 3.5 youd know this song
Well if you want your brain truly melted, I would look no further than here:
whAT DID I EVEN watCH?
Freaking awesome, mirite?
Funny how we've gone from talking about George Washington all the way to sharing videos about SpongeBob on acid.
I'm not a fan of his. I think this topic should be renamed though. Instead of asking whether libertarians should respect him, the question should just ask do you personally respect George Washington. Whether you like him or not does not make you a libertarian.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
SkepticalMetal:So I'm guessing you don't like 'ol George all that much if you bring up the Whiskey insurrection.
That's correct. And?
Anemone:Not only that, but he stood up, volunteered to lead an army, and then financed the army himself, losing virtually his entire fortune during the war, though he made it back after. In terms of libertarian theory of warfare, here is a man who raised an ad hoc army, privately financed(!), and succeeded against the greatest military power of that age. It would be like Bill Gates financing and leading an army against the US government :P and winning.
Why are you ignoring the Whiskey Rebellion?
@ Autolykos
Just checking.
Why the focus on the whisky rebellion? It was a tax protest that got out of hand from both sides.
If you judge historical figures of the past purely through the uncompromising ideal of NAP they will all fall badly short.
George Washington was a product of his times. A guy who did the best he could given the circumstances and cultural mores prevalent at the time.
Quite frankly America could have done a whole lot worse and we were lucky to have him when we did given potential alternatives.
The actions of such men must be judged in the context of thier times.
I can understand a push to get people to not venerate the founding fathers a gods. And yes they all could have done some things better/differently. But that doesn't mean that thier accomplishments should not be respected.
To condemn them for not living up to some modern ideology is just ridiculous.
.
.500NE:The actions of such men must be judged in the context of thier times.
I don't care how much you say that - I will not do so. I will judge them on my own terms, thank you very much.
.500NE:To condemn them for not living up to some modern ideology is just ridiculous.
That's your opinion. I'm under no obligation to agree with you.
.500NE:The actions of such men must be judged in the context of thier times. I don't care how much you say that - I will not do so. I will judge them on my own terms, thank you very much.
Then you are going to have a short list of people to respect. Cross off Plato & Aristotle, they supported the enslavement of other people...and COMMUNISMMMMMMMM
.500NE:To condemn them for not living up to some modern ideology is just ridiculous. That's your opinion. I'm under no obligation to agree with you.
I love how most of your posts consist of you stating things like that, useless tautologies that are implied in any thought that someone has, adding no context, nothing for discussion, or simply asking one line questions, also with no context for further discussion. As if people should just know you cause you're so fucking important.
"Whisky rebellion."
What affect do you expect that to have on me, exactly?
[QUOTE/] Autolykos said:
[Quote]
I view my post is just an alternative point of view to posts often presented on these type of historical judgement threads: that if a historical figure did not live up to the anarcho-capitalist ideal, they seem to be thrown under the bus as despicable pieces of trash - with no weight given to the historical context in which they lived and acted.
No one is under any obligation to agree with me.
But my opinion is just a valid as anyone elses.
Your post didn't sound to me like just an alternative point of view. It sounded to me like you were trying to enforce your own value judgements on everyone else by presenting them as facts instead. More specifically, you seemed to be claiming that 1) people are (i.e. factually) obligated to judge people's actions only in the context of their times and in no other way, and 2) that it is (i.e. factually) ridiculous to condemn someone who was alive in the past for not living up to some modern ideology.
By the way, the validity (i.e. worth) of an opinion is also a matter of opinion.
it is (i.e. factually) ridiculous to condemn someone who was alive in the past for not living up to some modern ideology.
It is. It is a way of making yourself think that you are "better" (have more character, are smarter, more in charge of one's will) than someone in the past because they thought differently. You see, you can talk all of the shit you want, but Washington can't stand up for himself or challenge you. Ao, it acts as a way for people like you to tear down other people's beliefs while you sit on a cloud of judgement telling them that thier defense of someone is useless because you have a more enlightened perspective.
It is certainly OKAY for you to do it, but it is not a respected opinion in the academic world.
/proceed shitting on academia.
Please prove that ridiculousness is in any way factual and not a matter of opinion (i.e. a [necessarily subjective] value judgement).
Ok, so let me get this straight - you disagree with me.
I know that people will disagree with me.
And if I took this:
“My point of view is correct. Your standards are overly harsh, and therefore wrong.”
And changed it to this
“I believe that my point of view is correct. I believe that your standards are overly harsh, and therefore wrong in my opinion.”
Would your level of disagreement with my viewpoint change?
I think not.
So it really doesn’t matter how I choose to phrase my views – either way you still disagree.
So why bother?
And in my opinion, your opinion that the validity of my opinion is also just a matter of opinion is no less valid than any other opinion.
Autolykos:Why are you ignoring the Whiskey Rebellion?
Not ignoring per se, only pointing out a few things Washington did that were in line with libertarian principle. I never said we should laud him, only that his record isn't wholly antithetical to freedom.
If you want to say that on the balance he scores a poor record for a man in power, then we agree.
Even the best thinkers back then--hell even today--were and are confused about liberty philosophy. Such contemporaries as Hayek didn't have a proper theory of coercion and aggression. I think it's only with Rothbard that we begin to see clarity on many previously murky issues.
Even John Locke fared somewhat poorly in his writings of the day. Washington then was hardly an ideologue either. Had the philosophy of liberty been advanced at that point in history to where we have it now, they may not have been so foolish as to attempt a "limited government" for they would know that no such thing is possible.
But the truth is, we only really know that now because they embarked on the grand experiment of the USA. It was a radical attempt at implementing freedom, even if in hindsight we must judge it a failed attempt. There are still things to be grateful for in their actions. Locke may have had some elements wrong, but he advanced liberty still. And Washington too may have done stupid things when in power, as all people in power inevitably do, but he was majorly responsible for America, which is still the world's best hope as a springboard for liberty and libertarian principle.
.500NE:So why bother?
My level of disagreement with you would change. The first example is factually inaccurate. The second example isn't.
Why bother presenting your value judgements as though they're facts? I suspect you have an ulterior motive.
.500NE:And in my opinion, your opinion that the validity of my opinion is also just a matter of opinion is no less valid than any other opinion.
It's not an opinion that the validity (i.e. worth) that one attaches to an opinion is itself an opinion - it's a fact. Try again.
Autolykos: My level of disagreement with you would change. The first example is factually inaccurate. The second example isn't.
I just pounded out my opinion on an internet message board. You analyzed the grammar of my post far more than I ever thought of doing…
Autolykos: Why bother presenting your value judgements as though they're facts? I suspect you have an ulterior motive.
Wow. You are reading into things far more than you need to.
Everyone else who read this thread probably got the jist of what I was saying in my posts without worrying overmuch about my unconscious grammar choices.
Autolykos: It's not an opinion that the validity (i.e. worth) that one attaches to an opinion is itself an opinion - it's a fact. Try again.
Ok, about the 34th post in you said:
Autolykos: By the way, the validity (i.e. worth) of an opinion is also a matter of opinion.