But seriously, you took something I said and blew it up. I was responding to someone who said that AnCaps (which I consider myself to be one) only romanticize Murray Rothbard. Now I could of said “I don’t know about other ancaps, but I think” but I didn’t really think I needed to do that. Apparently, I did. By the way, this is the second time that you have gone out of your way to purposely take offence to something I said. Stop trying to flame man.
I stated that people in history should not be romanticized and Rothbard, like others, had his faults. I stated what I thought those faults were and you turn it into a book burning party. If you are going to continue to do this, I am just going to ignore you.
Look–I’m not going to dance around it–I think Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Madison (mostly), and Patrick Henry were all awesome. I honestly don’t think there’s too terribly much that you could tell me about them that would turn me off. I’m open to suggestion if you’d like to try. It’s not romanticizing them, it’s putting their accomplishments and ideals in context to their times. Without Thomas Jefferson there would be no Rothbard. But, honestly, I don’t give a dick if you want to say I deify them. I don’t base my respect of people wholly on their adherance to an-cap beliefs.
Not to mention that, according to Andrew’s world view, Plato and Aristotle should be disrespected. I think you’d have a hard time convincing many people that their support for aggressive slavery would somehow negate the value of their writings. Andrew’s worldview is iconoclastic (said to stir controversey and gather him attention).
Well, tbh, I have no respect for Plato :\ Without him there’d be no Marx, no communism, no Godwin, no ideal of the philosopher king by which so much evil has been advanced.
That is very petty and almost laughable. Have you even read his writings?
Republic has the cave allegory, the quadrivium (the mathematical education system that lasted quite literally until the 1800s), etc. Symposium is a great piece of literature (not about politics at all, but love). Phaedrus I was wishing to beat Obama and Romney over the head with earlier (he talks about how rhetoric isn’t virtuous that it is manipulative). Apologia, Crito, Meno… gah!! Get your head out of the gutter and enlighten yourself. He is one of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen. Indisputably.
I don’t like Plato, but I certainly respect him. I admit I base my opinion of him mostly on the Republic. But I mean Socrates basically lives only through his writings so that’s something on its own. I mean he was a revolutionary and prolifically different thinker. And, as humans, I think that quality alone is laudable.
I haven’t read all of him, to be sure. Not even close.
Perhaps his philosophical grouond breaking is more important than his political musings. The Republic made me want to kick him in the shin. It enumerates a society of pure centralized communal socialism, typifying the ideal of the smart ruling completely the idiots.
But when one traces backwards the philosophical roots of certain ideologies, especially the ones that justify using the state to accomplish all ends, all roads lead to Plato. For that I can’t forgive him.
What I mean is: 1) I don’t understand what he thinks qualifies as an “honest answer”, and would like to understand that; and 2) regardless of whatever he thinks qualifies as an “honest answer”, it’s clearly different from what I think qualifies as an “honest answer”, so I still don’t think his last two replies to my question qualify as “honest answers”.
“Look–I’m not going to dance around it–I think Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Madison (mostly), and Patrick Henry were all awesome. I honestly don’t think there’s too terribly much that you could tell me about them that would turn me off. I’m open to suggestion if you’d like to try. It’s not romanticizing them, it’s putting their accomplishments and ideals in context to their times. Without Thomas Jefferson there would be no Rothbard. But, honestly, I don’t give a dick if you want to say I deify them. I don’t base my respect of people wholly on their adherance to an-cap beliefs.”
Well I do not base my respect on people on their adherance to an-cap beliefs either. I think it is a stretch to say that without Thomas Jefferson, there would be no Rothbard. Sure some concepts that influenced Jefferson also influenced Rothbard but it is not as if Jefferson made Rothbard. But seriously, I am not trying to insult you, why do you have such reverence for these individuals? A man’s ideals and a man’s actions are two different things. So tell me what you think.
Jefferson did try very hard, and was as close to a libertarian as we can get in that period perhaps.
In any case, he was against replacing the Articles of Confederation–the federalists conspired to make him ambassador to France to get him out of the country while they controlled the constitutional conventions.
And, later, as president, he killed the national bank, paid off the deficit, and was against standing armies.
Anyway. He retired and realized he’d basically failed.
Jefferson is the archetype for a renaissance man. I don’t think there were any types of science or art that he didn’t try his hand at, and he excelled at most of them. The amount that Jefferson accomplished and studied is simply mind boggling to me. AND he hated Hamilton.
Franklin is the same sort of deal except he also embodies the type of lust for life that I find balances out hard work and learning.
I realize that no man is perfect, and no man is a god. I imagine that the easiest critiques of Jefferson are his slaves and the Louisiana Purchase. Franklin heralded the USPS and was involved with central banking. I’ve never met these men, but if I could have a beer summit with a few icons from history, they would be near the top of the list (Franklin especially, cause he could probably smash em).
