Favorite President(s)?

Miscellaneous History
1

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.

Why do we listen to these people?
2

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…

3

This does not seem very libertarian to me.

4

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.

5

Obama is my favorite president.

6

That actually reminds me. I think I’ve got an answer: William Henry Harrison.

7

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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

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 :wink:

11

Does one weight out the effect of the other? Jackson is on the $20, why?

12

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.

13

because central banking effects everyone not just ONE group of people. Does that make sense?

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?

14

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

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.

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.

15

**

  • Not true.** if it was then correlation/causation wouldn’t be a thing, yo.

**

** - Huh? Is english your first language?

**

** - 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.

**

** There was enough evidence. even more now.

**

** - Huh?

**

** - 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.

**

** - 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)

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.

16

Grover Cleveland FTW.

17

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.

18

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.

but again, im gonna go CHOKE IN MY SLEEP, after all, i have an opinion.

19

Very good insight, something that people should really remember.

… Nuh uh…

I don’t think you get how smart we are, we’ve read Rothbard.

20

Even Rothbard looked up to the founders despite their flaws.