The thing I enjoyed most about “John Adams” was watching their teeth rot.

If I was in the tenth grade and they made us watch “John Adams” in history class I would have been delighted. But ssr50 nailed it: I felt obligated to watch this more than I think I really wanted to. I watched every minute, though, because you gotta be there for “Jefferson survives …” at the end. Before the last episode I said to the wife, “OK, let’s watch everyone die.”

Now, if Ian McShane had played Adams and gone all Al Swearengen on us, that would have been something to see.

Did Jefferson not get things done? I said I have Libertarian sympathies, not that I am a full blown nutjob like a ton of fellow Ron Paul supporters. I have actually taken a deal of interest to put down, and condemn the actions and ideals of many of them. Belief in self governance is not such a bad thing…when used actively in our own lives, but changed at a slow pace. I have never had qualms with public education (well, atleast not that it exists), or roads being built. I may have quite a bit more of a problem with the welfare state, and give to charity because I believe that is how it should be done.

I am more concerned with the idea of freedom, not discerning between economic and personal, than I am with many of the follies other libertarians are quite adamant about. I have much distaste for Hamilton because of his fondness for repression and dominance, much like Wilson’s near fascist presidency.

Hating on the national bank is quite easy, when looked at how the value of the dollar struggles dramatically every time a national bank has been instituted. Am I saying that “the gold standard” is the way to go? I will respond that I am not smart enough to find a system that accommodates everything in a reasonable fashion, and neither system really does.

There are many affirmative actions libertarians would be fond of, ending the war on drugs (in a fashion that is not too hasty) would be one.

I can discuss this all day. You are not wrong to be initially offset by most libertarians, who would be completely happy if the world was made up of 500000 tiny communities. I would not fall into that category. I am a realist in many ways, but still enjoy fighting for my right for freedom, and the right of the individual.

I would say that Hamilton and Wilson were more “impacting on our enduring history” simply because they were idealists who also had the ability to get things done. In fact, once somebody gets something done, they no longer fit the technical qualifications for “libertarian” - an idealist safely removed from any realistic opportunity to be impactful.

That’s not to say both weren’t without their merits, or their deficiencies. Jefferson’s belief the constitution should be changed/redrafted every 20 years (or something similar to that), his belief that the yeoman farmer was the wave of the American future, and not industry, the whole slave issue, are a bit bothersome.

Yet that’s nothing in comparison with how I feel about Hamilton. Without getting on about the federal reserve/national banks (look at the value of the dollar since the founding of the federal reserve in 1916), and any other form of “we need a STRONGER NATIONAL GOVERNMENT RAWWRRRR”, Hamilton will always be one of the two most despised people in American history, right behind the antichrist of them Presidents, Woodrow Wilson. Not to say McCarthy wasn’t a nut either, just less impacting on our enduring history.

If you really wanted to hurl your judgement at historical figures, start with a main course of Jefferson and you shant have room for dessert.