153 replies to this topic

[Rational Madman]

ChromodynamicGirl, on 03 November 2010 - 05:20 AM, said:

Ludwig von Mises. Because he'd resign, and I don't have a country.

So you've formally renounced your citizenship?

[ChromodynamicGirl]

Quote

So you've formally renounced your citizenship?

This presumes I give credence to their stupid legalisms. I don't.

[Rational Madman]

ChromodynamicGirl, on 05 November 2010 - 03:37 AM, said:

Quote

So you've formally renounced your citizenship?

This presumes I give credence to their stupid legalisms. I don't.

Well, I happen to think legal distinctions on matters of citizenship lead to a more orderly world, because the existence of nation-states necessitated by an anarchic international system is a very real issue.

[chris w]

Rol82, on 05 November 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

RighteousReason, on 30 October 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'm thinking George Washington or Thomas Jefferson

Why?

Maybe Righteous Reason felt his blood levels of Americanism going down

[Rational Madman]

chris w, on 07 November 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Rol82, on 05 November 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

RighteousReason, on 30 October 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'm thinking George Washington or Thomas Jefferson

Why?

Maybe Righteous Reason felt his blood levels of Americanism going down

You know, there was such a deviation from the thread topic, that his mention of Jefferson and Washington seemed out of place at the time.  But since the topic is "Your Preferred Historical Leader," I get what he was trying to say now.  Washington I can agree with to some extent, but Hamilton was the brains of the executive branch---either officially or unofficially---and Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure.  Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities.  When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

[maxwatt]

Rol82, on 08 November 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

chris w, on 07 November 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Rol82, on 05 November 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

RighteousReason, on 30 October 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'm thinking George Washington or Thomas Jefferson

Why?

Maybe Righteous Reason felt his blood levels of Americanism going down

You know, there was such a deviation from the thread topic, that his mention of Jefferson and Washington seemed out of place at the time.  But since the topic is "Your Preferred Historical Leader," I get what he was trying to say now.  Washington I can agree with to some extent, but Hamilton was the brains of the executive branch---either officially or unofficially---and Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure.  Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities.  When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

Which is no doubt why we build the memorial monument to him.  

The first act of colossal stupidity cited above is perfectly in keeping with Republican small-government libertarian ideals.  And no doubt the tariffs were intended to save American jobs?

[Rational Madman]

maxwatt, on 09 November 2010 - 12:04 AM, said:

Rol82, on 08 November 2010 - 11:27 PM, said:

chris w, on 07 November 2010 - 04:01 PM, said:

Rol82, on 05 November 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

RighteousReason, on 30 October 2010 - 04:00 PM, said:

I'm thinking George Washington or Thomas Jefferson

Why?

Maybe Righteous Reason felt his blood levels of Americanism going down

You know, there was such a deviation from the thread topic, that his mention of Jefferson and Washington seemed out of place at the time.  But since the topic is "Your Preferred Historical Leader," I get what he was trying to say now.  Washington I can agree with to some extent, but Hamilton was the brains of the executive branch---either officially or unofficially---and Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure.  Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities.  When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

Which is no doubt why we build the memorial monument to him.  

The first act of colossal stupidity cited above is perfectly in keeping with Republican small-government libertarian ideals.  And no doubt the tariffs were intended to save American jobs?

Yes, his administration was an indulgence of his fantasies of diluting federal powers (and transferring them to the states and individuals), balancing the budget just for the sake of pursuing the aforementioned goal  (although he didn't mind incurring enormous private debts), transforming the United States into an independent island with few foreign attachments, and maintaining the primacy of the agrarian sector of the economy.  Combined with results of enacting an embargo (I previously thought it was just tariffs, but I'm admittedly somewhat shaky with my recall of early American history) against all of continental Europe, the results were quite predictable: an economic crisis so serious that our independence and survival as a nation-state was placed in peril.  And I imagine Jefferson took sick pleasure from watching the local economy of New England regress, because he harbored such an illogically deep hostility towards the Federalist vision for the American economy.  

To be fair, though, the British were behaving like infants---sponsoring Indian attacks against citizens of the United States, maintaining a military presence in sovereign territory, and seizing the cargo and crew members of merchant ships that dared trade with Napoleonic France (and sometimes just for the purpose of inflicting pain).  But rather than declare neutrality, and compromise our critical commercial ties with Great Britain (a relationship that represented about three quarters of the volume of trade), the more obvious approach would've been to build a credible national military to protect against this sort of harassment, cooperate with the British blockade, and begin negotiations over sources of irritation.  Rather, his policies laid the seeds for the very costly War of 1812, and reversed nearly all of the positive economic gains of his predecessors.  But I'll give him credit for starving the ostensible beast, and demonstrating the depths of the insanity of his enlightened yeoman farmer-devolved powers fantasy---and thus, sparing future generations.  Like I said, though, I would have much preferred an exile at Monticello---entailing working on eccentric inventions, reading obscure philosophy, only writing about the virtues of limited government, living extravagantly on borrowed money, neurotically conspiring against political opponents, and taking liberties with slaves under his employ.  This more innocuous Jefferson might have then been worthy of the monuments and the endless deification that has followed his death.

Edited by Rol82, 11 November 2010 - 06:46 PM.

[j03]

Ron Paul. 

[j03]

Or Napoleon 

[BrandonKing]

i would choose Thomas Jefferson, America's best president and true visionary he is my political hero and idol

[maxwatt]

milkdude94, on 02 December 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

i would choose Thomas Jefferson, America's best president and true visionary he is my political hero and idol

Rol82 said:

Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure. Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities. When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

It's ironic that Jefferson, a founder of the Democratic party, so espoused the ideals of today's libertarian-republican-tea bags.

[EmbraceUnity]

maxwatt, on 02 December 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

It's ironic that Jefferson, a founder of the Democratic party, so espoused the ideals of today's libertarian-republican-tea bags.

You have that reversed. He held (and lived) the ideals merely espoused by today's "libertarian" republicans.

[Rational Madman]

maxwatt, on 02 December 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

milkdude94, on 02 December 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

i would choose Thomas Jefferson, America's best president and true visionary he is my political hero and idol

Rol82 said:

Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure. Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities. When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

It's ironic that Jefferson, a founder of the Democratic party, so espoused the ideals of today's libertarian-republican-tea bags.

Well, he was a founder of the Democratic-Republicans, which is a party that underwent a pretty interesting evolution.  Personally, though, I think the Federalists have a closer resemblance to the the Democratic Party---judging by their views on civil rights, economic management, and the role of the state.

[maxwatt]

Rol82, on 08 December 2010 - 08:13 AM, said:

maxwatt, on 02 December 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

milkdude94, on 02 December 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

i would choose Thomas Jefferson, America's best president and true visionary he is my political hero and idol

Rol82 said:

Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure. Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities. When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

It's ironic that Jefferson, a founder of the Democratic party, so espoused the ideals of today's libertarian-republican-tea bags.

Well, he was a founder of the Democratic-Republicans, which is a party that underwent a pretty interesting evolution.  Personally, though, I think the Federalists have a closer resemblance to the the Democratic Party---judging by their views on civil rights, economic management, and the role of the state.

I was thinking the s0ame thing.  But the "solid South" is now solidly the party of Lincoln, whom the Dixiecrats revile, and the Northeast, in my childhood so solidly Republican yet liberal, has few Democratic legislators in a National level.

A major problem with the electorate is they treat the political parties like football teams to root for, with no consideration of what their policies mean to them except for the wedge issues (e.g. gay marriage) that political operatives use to arouse the fans.

[aLurker]

I nominate the Churchill, solely because of his sense of humor.
He is slightly dead though but I suppose he might be well preserved due to the alcohol.
I just hope reanimation doesn't reduce his vocabulary to "braaains". :/

Zombie Churchill for galactic president!

[BrandonKing]

maxwatt, on 08 December 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

Rol82, on 08 December 2010 - 08:13 AM, said:

maxwatt, on 02 December 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

milkdude94, on 02 December 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

i would choose Thomas Jefferson, America's best president and true visionary he is my political hero and idol

Rol82 said:

Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure. Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities. When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

It's ironic that Jefferson, a founder of the Democratic party, so espoused the ideals of today's libertarian-republican-tea bags.

Well, he was a founder of the Democratic-Republicans, which is a party that underwent a pretty interesting evolution.  Personally, though, I think the Federalists have a closer resemblance to the the Democratic Party---judging by their views on civil rights, economic management, and the role of the state.

I was thinking the s0ame thing.  But the "solid South" is now solidly the party of Lincoln, whom the Dixiecrats revile, and the Northeast, in my childhood so solidly Republican yet liberal, has few Democratic legislators in a National level.

A major problem with the electorate is they treat the political parties like football teams to root for, with no consideration of what their policies mean to them except for the wedge issues (e.g. gay marriage) that political operatives use to arouse the fans.

Thomas Jefferson ruled America under the beliefs of a Jeffersonian Democracy while he was president, which is Democracy is its purest form and it was like that till the mid 1800s when the Federalists took power and changed everything around. I claim my political party to be a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian because i hold the beliefs of all those(not the democrats and republicans today but what they actually stand for not the monsters that they evolved into)

[maxwatt]

milkdude94, on 06 January 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

....

Thomas Jefferson ruled America under the beliefs of a Jeffersonian Democracy while he was president, which is Democracy is its purest form and it was like that till the mid 1800s when the Federalists took power and changed everything around. I claim my political party to be a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian because i hold the beliefs of all those(not the democrats and republicans today but what they actually stand for not the monsters that they evolved into)

You would not consult an alchemist to determine safety procedures for a nuclear power plant. You would not consult an 18th century surgeon if you were brought bleeding into the emergency room after a serious traffic accident.  Why would you consult the pale ghosts of politicians' political philosophies that were arguably failures in their own time, and have little applicability to the economies and social structures of today?

Yes, we have "monsters" today, but they very well suit the needs of those who truly wield power, or they would be quickly swept aside.

[hivemind]

My preferred leader is me myself. Please give all the power to me.

[Rational Madman]

milkdude94, on 06 January 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

maxwatt, on 08 December 2010 - 12:58 PM, said:

Rol82, on 08 December 2010 - 08:13 AM, said:

maxwatt, on 02 December 2010 - 01:07 PM, said:

milkdude94, on 02 December 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

i would choose Thomas Jefferson, America's best president and true visionary he is my political hero and idol

Rol82 said:

Jefferson's decision to arbitrarily reduce federal expenditures by half, and enact tariffs against our largest trading partner were acts of colossal stupidity that outweighed everything else that he did during his tenure. Jefferson was at his best when residing at Monticello, and when stripped of public responsibilities. When he was in office, he was ineffectual at least, and disastrous at worst.

It's ironic that Jefferson, a founder of the Democratic party, so espoused the ideals of today's libertarian-republican-tea bags.

Well, he was a founder of the Democratic-Republicans, which is a party that underwent a pretty interesting evolution.  Personally, though, I think the Federalists have a closer resemblance to the the Democratic Party---judging by their views on civil rights, economic management, and the role of the state.

I was thinking the s0ame thing.  But the "solid South" is now solidly the party of Lincoln, whom the Dixiecrats revile, and the Northeast, in my childhood so solidly Republican yet liberal, has few Democratic legislators in a National level.

A major problem with the electorate is they treat the political parties like football teams to root for, with no consideration of what their policies mean to them except for the wedge issues (e.g. gay marriage) that political operatives use to arouse the fans.

Thomas Jefferson ruled America under the beliefs of a Jeffersonian Democracy while he was president, which is Democracy is its purest form and it was like that till the mid 1800s when the Federalists took power and changed everything around. I claim my political party to be a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian because i hold the beliefs of all those(not the democrats and republicans today but what they actually stand for not the monsters that they evolved into)

The Federalists took power in the mid-1800s?

[mikeinnaples]

chris w, on 27 September 2010 - 05:52 PM, said:

Yeah, probably afterall that is an urban myth started by a manager or someone to match "beautiful" with "smart". BI 2 - definitely a waste of time ( not that part one was so impressing either )

If we want to really match beauty with brains ...it would be in Natalie Portman.

[Rational Madman]

mikeinnaples, on 10 January 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:

chris w, on 27 September 2010 - 05:52 PM, said:

Yeah, probably afterall that is an urban myth started by a manager or someone to match "beautiful" with "smart". BI 2 - definitely a waste of time ( not that part one was so impressing either )

If we want to really match beauty with brains ...it would be in Natalie Portman.

Natalie Portman is certainly a fascinating creature, which I believe is largely due to the combination of remarkable aesthetic qualities, and what appears to be an exceptional mind.  She represents the feminine ideal that has provided creative energy for poets and writers for ages, whose creativity has frequently needed muses for their labor to take the shape of beautiful prose.  I myself have fantasized, and long sought after a woman that lives up to my celestial feminine ideal.  But for varied reasons, this sort of mystical creature has alluded me.  Only recently have I realized that my failure was due to my unrealistic expectations for a partner, that an unhealthy consumption of literature replete with female deities engendered, and that no earthly woman---however noteworthy---could possibly satiate.  In my admittedly tumultuous affair with my current partner, I spent an embarrassing amount of energy searching for this particular woman---on dating websites, bars, and other predictable places of congregation.  The courtship and promise of realizing this fantasy was my opiate, but once the human qualities of my subjects invariably emerged to the surface, I promptly terminated my escapist act of infidelity, and resumed my vain search in earnest.  Eventually, I reached several conclusions, the most important being that this endeavor was unhealthy, an irretrievable waste of energy, and divorced from basic realities that should have been apparent.  The basic  reality, which was the most important lesson that I derived from this deluded enterprise, was that no individual is truly exceptional.

Of course, there are some that have qualities that may objectively be seen as greatly exceeding those of others, but they seem to be reliably balanced by other deficits that are disconcerting, and may neutralize the areas of which individuals excel.  For this reason, I have decided to settle with my current partner, whom is imperfect, but suits my needs, and with whom I share an affinity sufficient to sustain a partnership.  In romance, settling has an under-appreciated virtue, because more than we might care to accept, we are empirically healthier and more productive as individuals when we have a significant other for solace from our daily ills.  This is not to say that partnerships should be preserved largely on this basis, and I realize that I'm wildly deviating from the thread topic, but I believe that we should become more pragmatic about such affairs, and that the passionate intensity, and lofty expectations that we normatively attach to romantic partnerships should become secondary to the more enduring bind of stability that such relationships offer.


Returning to Natalie Portman, and of more relevance to this thread, I would like to offer the following question, of which I'm personally ambivalent: are exercises like this thread healthy?  I think it's acceptable to celebrate the achievements and properties that make individuals great, but more often than not, celebration is supplanted by exalting individuals to a level that places them almost beyond fallibility, and creates a distorted image that is frequently inconsistent with reality.  In political decisions where the governed mechanistically balance against personal failings of decision makers, there is a great potential for disastrous outcomes with this behavior.  Additionally, historical precedents set by celebrated decision makers constitutes a similar threat, because as demonstrated by many of the thread participants, the sometimes laudable and groundbreaking contributions that oft cited figures have made to forming the shape of national societies have become irreproachable devices for rationalizing ongoing dilemmas that individuals, organizations, and societies must contend with, regardless of circumstances.  And with figures in all forms of media, like Natalie Portman, there is perhaps a less threatening dynamic at work, that subjectively speaking, can affect individuals on more of a micro level. So in sum, I think we should be cognizant of the perils and extent of individual worship, and learn to appreciate the many faces of exceptionalism that most individuals---barring certain medical conditions---possess.

Edited by Rol82, 15 January 2011 - 08:21 AM.

[Rational Madman]

Despite my previous entry, and although he doesn't fit my definition of preferred historical leader, I'd like to take the time at some point to defend the legacy of Eamon de Valera, which is a project that unfortunately never made it past the planning stages in graduate school.  Especially because of the overshadowing legacy of "The Big Fella."

Edited by Rol82, 22 January 2011 - 10:23 AM.

[BrandonKing]

maxwatt, on 06 January 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

milkdude94, on 06 January 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

....

Thomas Jefferson ruled America under the beliefs of a Jeffersonian Democracy while he was president, which is Democracy is its purest form and it was like that till the mid 1800s when the Federalists took power and changed everything around. I claim my political party to be a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian because i hold the beliefs of all those(not the democrats and republicans today but what they actually stand for not the monsters that they evolved into)

You would not consult an alchemist to determine safety procedures for a nuclear power plant. You would not consult an 18th century surgeon if you were brought bleeding into the emergency room after a serious traffic accident.  Why would you consult the pale ghosts of politicians' political philosophies that were arguably failures in their own time, and have little applicability to the economies and social structures of today?

Yes, we have "monsters" today, but they very well suit the needs of those who truly wield power, or they would be quickly swept aside.

actually he basically says in nearly all of his quotes "run America this way(usually something relating to people having power) or *add bad situation here* will happen* lo and behold we did not listen to him and nearly everything he predicted did indeed happen there is a reason

and of course i will always firmly believe that power should reside in the people(it does not these days but solely n the government we only have a facade of America these days) and it is proven fact and has been proven time and time again throughout history that the larger the government the less freedom the individual has

[maxwatt]

milkdude94, on 15 February 2011 - 07:21 AM, said:

maxwatt, on 06 January 2011 - 01:41 PM, said:

milkdude94, on 06 January 2011 - 12:23 PM, said:

....

Thomas Jefferson ruled America under the beliefs of a Jeffersonian Democracy while he was president, which is Democracy is its purest form and it was like that till the mid 1800s when the Federalists took power and changed everything around. I claim my political party to be a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian because i hold the beliefs of all those(not the democrats and republicans today but what they actually stand for not the monsters that they evolved into)

You would not consult an alchemist to determine safety procedures for a nuclear power plant. You would not consult an 18th century surgeon if you were brought bleeding into the emergency room after a serious traffic accident.  Why would you consult the pale ghosts of politicians' political philosophies that were arguably failures in their own time, and have little applicability to the economies and social structures of today?

Yes, we have "monsters" today, but they very well suit the needs of those who truly wield power, or they would be quickly swept aside.

actually he basically says in nearly all of his quotes "run America this way(usually something relating to people having power) or *add bad situation here* will happen* lo and behold we did not listen to him and nearly everything he predicted did indeed happen there is a reason

and of course i will always firmly believe that power should reside in the people(it does not these days but solely n the government we only have a facade of America these days) and it is proven fact and has been proven time and time again throughout history that the larger the government the less freedom the individual has

You mean free, like in Somalia?

FYI, the Federalists were basically a New England based party, that disappeared by 1820.  Jefferson was an agrarian Souuthern planter, and the Democratic-Republicans largely espoused his view of limited central government.  Slaves were not particularly free with this limited government.  Somalia is another land with limited government.  There an individual is free to be bullied by the strongest local thug, warlord or party.

As for your point that we now have a facade of democracy (if that is what you mean by a "facade of America"), you may have a point:  the founders enshrined a free press under the belief that a people must be informed to be free.  

Would yo please provide some specific examples of something Jefferson warned against, which came to pass, and is a disaster?

[chris w]

milkdude94, on 15 February 2011 - 07:21 AM, said:

actually he basically says in nearly all of his quotes "run America this way(usually something relating to people having power) or *add bad situation here* will happen* lo and behold we did not listen to him and nearly everything he predicted did indeed happen there is a reason

and of course i will always firmly believe that power should reside in the people(it does not these days but solely n the government we only have a facade of America these days) and it is proven fact and has been proven time and time again throughout history that the larger the government the less freedom the individual has

How would you interpret what he says in the letter to Logan ? :

Quote

...In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country

Seems like "crushing" anything requires a government with some pretty non - neglibile power at its disposal. I'm asking what you think in honesty, I don't live in US and I don't need to have a horse in this race, but isn't corporate influence on politics what a lot of politically conscious people in America of wide range of the ideological spectrum bitch about currently ?

From what I gather reading here and there, Jefferson was only a Libertarian in the pre - Industrial Age shape of this ideology and as an advocate of the more or less egalitarian yeoman farmer way of life he feared and expected large private accumulation of financial power to be detrimental to the society he valued. From the quote above it looks like he perhaps might be in favor of some strong anti - monopolistic tools at the hands of the government ( "crush in its birth" )

Also it doesn't seem like he held the very words of the Constitution so sacrosant, 1816's letter to Samuel Kercheval :

Quote

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. :

What are your thoughts here ?

[Rational Madman]

To put it delicately, I don't think Milkdude is really up to the task of defending the philosophy and tenure of Jefferson.  However, Christopher Hitchens probably delivers the most eloquent defense of Jefferson, and for the Federalists, I think Ron Chernow is without a peer.  But the problem with figures like Jefferson and Paine is that their ideas were born in an era of revolution and violence, which rendered them extreme and uncompromising, and inapt for positions of political power---where occasionally you have to be pragmatic.  While their contributions were indisputably invaluable, Hamilton---and by extension, the Federalists---should be credited with shaping the visions of revolutionaries into a workable model of governance.  Unfortunately, Hamilton's deficits as politician, and his insistence on practical solutions led to him being relegated to the rank of minor founding father.  Despite this lamentable treatment, though, Hamilton was perhaps the most accomplished and visionary of these early architects.  And as Washington's de-facto Prime Minister, he should be credited for making some exceedingly sage contributions: fathering the Department of Treasury, being a critical instrument in the creation of the First Bank of the United States, rejecting pleas to support Revolutionary France, laying the groundwork for an enduring alliance with Great Britain, making the case for expanded federal powers not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, subsidizing the development of infant industries, ingeniously lowering the borrowing costs of the federal government, playing an essential role in pacifying pockets of domestic unrest, urging the adoption of standing armed forces, and helping to lay  the seeds to the abolitionist movement.  Indeed, in the final analysis, I think it could be fairly said that we owe our revolutionary ideals to Jefferson, our civil peace to Washington, and the notion of federal governance to Hamilton.  Yet there isn't a meaningful landmark to honor his legacy, just a customs house that was eventually bequeathed to the Native Americans, and a former home that has fallen into a dreadful state of disrepair.

Edited by Rol82, 16 February 2011 - 01:46 AM.

[maxwatt]

Rol82, on 15 February 2011 - 10:28 PM, said:

...I think it could be fairly said that we owe our revolutionary ideals to Jefferson, our civil peace to Washington, and the notion of federal governance to Hamilton.  Yet, there isn't a meaningful landmark to honor his legacy, just a customs house that was eventually bequeathed to the Native Americans, and a former home that has fallen into a dreadful state of disrepair.

There is also his tombstone in the churchyard of Trinity Church in lower Manhattan, somewhat worn and begrimed from the traffic fumes of Broadway.  He was also a founder in 1784 of The Bank of New York, a global financial institution and in its way a fitting monument, but it merged with Mellon in 2007 and continues as The Bank of New York Mellon.  The secret of the bank's success was said by Wall Street insiders to lie in following the instructions of its founder: when Hamilton left to cross the Hudson for his fatal duel with Aaron Burr, he told his staff "do nothing until I return."  And they haven't.

[Rational Madman]

Actually, I have to say that I'm quite pleased with the progress of The Grange's renovations and difficult transplantation.  I suppose, my impression was formed by the condition displayed in this picture, which correlated with my last visit to the site.  And at the time, administrators were less than optimistic about the future of the site.  But I suppose they pulled through, and I'm a bit embarrassed that I wasn't closely following the progress after my donation.

Before:



After:



Since I imagine many of us allocate variable sums annually to charitable causes, please consider donating a portion to St. Nicholas Park---the home of The Grange:http://stnicholaspar...nds/#contribute

Edited by Rol82, 16 February 2011 - 02:08 AM.

[niner]

chris w, on 15 February 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

How would you interpret what he says in the letter to Logan ? :

Quote

...In this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. And accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. It ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people, but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country

That Jefferson failed to grasp the intricacies of the apostrophe is disturbing.  He would be at home on today's internet forum.

chris w, on 15 February 2011 - 02:42 PM, said:

Also it doesn't seem like he held the very words of the Constitution so sacrosant, 1816's letter to Samuel Kercheval :

Quote

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. :

Hooboy!  Memo to SCOTUS (red team).

[TheFountain]

Martin luther king
John lennon
Timothy leary

I consider these men leaders, who could have been universally affective if they were ever elected to any office.

The closest thing to a true leader we have now is Dennis Kucinich. He ran for president twice and was ignored twice, because people are stupid.