Rank of US Presidents by a Libertarian

[Karalysia]

At least he got one thing right.

 

[LightSpectra]

Well, that seems to be the result of the current system, whereby such a status of deservingness is granted by property rights.

So by legitimately discovering or trading for X, I'm effectively stealing X from other people by virtue of the fact that my efforts to acquire X are "arbitrary and undeserving?"

 

[aelf]

So by legitimately discovering or trading for X, I'm effectively stealing X from other people by virtue of the fact that my efforts to acquire X are "arbitrary and undeserving?"

Nope. What is problematic is not the concept of ownership per se, but how far that extends. For instance, and this is a major sticking point, is the acquisition of property through inheritance legitimate? Is it not arbitrary and undeserved?

Through a conception of justice as entitlement, libertarians are able to come up with a coherent defense of property rights as we know them (whereby property can be transferred and accumulated quite independently of labour). However, that invariably results in manifestly unfair circumstances (e.g. the existence of a class of idle rich while there are a great many poor hardworking people), conditions that human psychology itself are wont to reject.

 

[LightSpectra]

Nope. What is problematic is not the concept of ownership per se, but how far that extends. For instance, and this is a major sticking point, is the acquisition of property through inheritance legitimate? Is it not arbitrary and undeserved?

Have you ever given a present to your boyfriend or girlfriend? Is it not arbitrary and undeserved to give somebody something for free, simply because they're your friend?

Through a conception of justice as entitlement, libertarians are able to come up with a coherent defense of property rights as we know them (whereby property can be transferred and accumulated quite independently of labour). However, that invariably results in manifestly unfair circumstances (e.g. the existence of a class of idle rich while there are a great many poor hardworking people), conditions that human psychology itself are wont to reject.

Some people are born blind, some people are born with 20/20 vision. I suppose if the blind can't be cured, a socialist government should go out and pluck out everybody's eyes to make us all equal?

The point itself presumes that government is sufficient to defeat unequal circumstances to ensure justice, but this is not the case, given the track record of all governments in history.

 

[Earthling]

Whoever this blogger was has a real tough time proving they qualify as human. At least, they should have to prove it as much as various "criminals" can't to various conservatives. Anyway, Lincoln at the bottom, just great, slavery is a libertarian ideal

Also, on the list, I think Garfield should be strictly above zero; he's rated one score wrong.

 

[aelf]

Have you ever given a present to your boyfriend or girlfriend? Is it not arbitrary and undeserved to give somebody something for free, simply because they're your friend?

That is indeed somewhat like a favoured libertarian example with which the point is argued.

However, it doesn't stop there. There is nothing that says you can't differentiate between personal property and other forms of property that are more social in nature, the latter which you might not be morally justified in appropriating for personal use and then handing over to whomever you like. Also, that argument does not take into account the unfair and even ridiculous outcomes that might result from following such a conception of justice as entitlement to the end.

Some people are born blind, some people are born with 20/20 vision. I suppose if the blind can't be cured, a socialist government should go out and pluck out everybody's eyes to make us all equal?

Yeah, as if you don't know that's not a ridiculous strawman

You haven't learned how to debate philosophically, have you?

For more info on life and fairness from a liberal perspective, read Rawls' A Theory of Justice.

The point itself presumes that government is sufficient to defeat unequal circumstances to ensure justice, but this is not the case, given the track record of all governments in history.

Nowhere did I posit that strong government presence is necessary. In fact, the other side of the coin is strong government presence is necessary to enforce the kind of property rights we have!

 

[LightSpectra]

However, it doesn't stop there. There is nothing that says you can't differentiate between personal property and other forms of property that are more social in nature, the latter which you might not be morally justified in appropriating for personal use and then handing over to whomever you like. Also, that argument does not take into account the unfair and even ridiculous outcomes that might result from following such a conception of justice as entitlement to the end.

I only think that what people have a complete right to -- that is, something that simply by possessing it does no harm to others -- they're allowed to do with it as they wish. If they want to spoil their children and friends in this manner, then I don't think it's a good idea, but they're allowed to do as they wish because they're the ones who earned it.

Yeah, as if you don't know that's not a ridiculous strawman

It would be a strawman if I implied that this were your argument. Rather, it's an extreme example that demonstrates the logical fallaciousness in thinking that government can do much to end cosmic injustice.

For more info on life and fairness from a liberal perspective, read Rawls' A Theory of Justice.

And I invite you to read G.K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc on distributism.

Let me clarify that I'm not an extreme capitalist by any means. In fact, I'm almost entirely apathetic to economic issues; Nigeria is the happiest country in the world because of their social structure, in spite of their relative poverty. I think capitalism is, like democracy, the worst possible system -- except for all of the others which have been tried.

Nowhere did I posit that strong government presence is necessary. In fact, the other side of the coin is strong government presence is necessary to enforce the kind of property rights we have!

Not a strong government. Only a government. Otherwise people would take self-defense to an extreme (but necessary at this stage) degree, which is undesirable.

 

[aelf]

I only think that what people have a complete right to -- that is, something that simply by possessing it does no harm to others -- they're allowed to do with it as they wish. If they want to spoil their children and friends in this manner, then I don't think it's a good idea, but they're allowed to do as they wish because they're the ones who earned it.

But could you argue that no harm is done when there is gross inequality? Or when one is forced (not physically, but for whatever socio-economic factors) to work for a pittance?

I'd go further and call for fair compensation for labour expended. It might be said that there is no way to know whether something is fair, but I'd argue that we can certainly know when a situation is unfair, such as when we see a class of idle rich while plenty of hardworking people remain poor, or when some people are left to be utterly destitute for whatever reason.

Not a strong government. Only a government. Otherwise people would take self-defense to an extreme (but necessary at this stage) degree, which is undesirable.

Yes, I do think that some form of regulatory body will exist and (perhaps this might surprise you) that it should be as minimal as possible. At the same time, I'd say that having, instead of a big government, strong individuals or groups of people that can simply have their way regardless of what their fellowmen want isn't a desirable situation either, probably worse.

 

[Plotinus]

...objectively rank the 43 US presidents from best to worst by libertarian standards...

...44. Dubya

Now that is quite an achievement.

Despite the laudable denigration of W, I have to say that the list and the criteria used to rather demonstrate the absurdity of "libertarianism" (isn't this basically what we used to call anarchism?).

However, this thread seems to be turning into an argument about the relative virtues of "libertarianism" and socialism, or something. That doesn't belong in History. If it continues I'll move the thread to Off Topic.

 

[holy king]

(isn't this basically what we used to call anarchism?).

it's basically extreme liberalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

1. Martin Van Buren (1837-1841)
Good: Deregulated finances (+5), supported gold and silver as money (+7),[1] advocated lower tariffs (+4) and free trade (+4), opposed war abroad (+8),[2] kept federal troops out of Mormon War (+9), laissez-faire policies during Panic of 1837 (+9).[3]
Bad: Implemented Trail of Tears (-10).[4]
Score: 34

You get more points for "advocating" free trade, lower tariffs and precious metal standards than you lose for forced population transfers and the mass-murder of disenfranchised civilians? Jesus. As if we needed another reminder that libertarianism is just formalised sociopathy.

 

[Dreadnought]

I'll get back to you when I make the Rank of US presidents by a conservative. Reagan #1, Carter #44.

And yes, I said that to point out the uselessness of this list.

 

[classical_hero]

It seems that this thread shuld belong in OT, or perhaps H&J, considering how stupid the rank is. Rarely will Karalysia and I agree on anything, which is why this is such a shock.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I, Karalysia, or Cheezy should make a list from a socialist viewpoint.

If I were to do it, I'd take the top 5 or 10 things each president did (in importance, not goodness) and then give them points like this guy. And then voila!

 

[Karalysia]

1. Aberham Lincoln
2. Fredrick Delano Roosevelt
3. Lyndon Baines Johnson
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Woodrow Wilson
6. Harry Truman
7. Andrew Jackson
8. John Adams
9. Barack Obama
10. Jimmy Carter
11. Thomas Jefferson
12. George Washington
13. Ulysses S. Grant
14. Bill Clinton
15. Eisenhower

 

[Huayna Capac357]

I like math-y type things though, so...

And also I'd say Obama is doing fairly poorly considering the Copenhagen summit was a giant failure and he's pretty much given up on health care.

EDIT: And how is Andrew Jackson good? He deregulated the banks and started the process that led to the Trail of Tears. He was a pretty bad president.

 

[Karalysia]

EDIT: And how is Andrew Jackson good? He deregulated the banks and started the process that led to the Trail of Tears. He was a pretty bad president.

Democracy of the common (white) man. Democrats took their modern form and in 1832 and became a populist party.

And also I'd say Obama is doing fairly poorly considering the Copenhagen summit was a giant failure and he's pretty much given up on health care.

I'm banking on healthcare passing.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, Obama is no further left than Ike. Jackson was an SOB, but he was a populist SOB. So many of the 19th century presidents were noneties though, it's hard to rank them. And easy to forget them.

 

[Karalysia]

My list more or less breaks down after the top 5, but I'm certain about those 5.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

3. Lyndon Baines Johnson
4. Teddy Roosevelt
5. Woodrow Wilson
6. Harry Truman
7. Andrew Jackson
...
9. Barack Obama
10. Jimmy Carter
13. Ulysses S. Grant
...
15. Eisenhower

Good grief, I hope you're kidding. Why is Wilson, that reactionary, racist pig, so high? And Truman...virulently anticommunist and jingoist to boot...and Eisenhower, his spiritual successor?

I can't really rate American presidents, since I think most of them were wastes. The Roosevelts and Lincoln are the only ones worth any sort of mention, if this is to be done by a socialist, and even they were only mildly remarkable.