Could Objectivists Have Founded the United States?
Recently, Dr. David Kelley was asked:
Given the rifts in the Objectivist community and even among the so called open side of Objectivism, do you think it would have been possible for a group of Objectivists to actually found the United States or to even participate in its founding?
It seems to me that most fundamental trait of the founding fathers was their willingness to work with others who had very different views of religion, philosophy, and government so long as they were dedicated to the principles of liberty and independence from Great Britain. I don't see any way that Objectivists could have been party to such an activity as freeing the colonies and developing a Constitution. All of which required a willingness to work with others and to compromise. Of course, their doing so meant risking their lives, their liberty, and their fortunes whereas, today, it might only mean a guest blog or voting for a less than ideal candidate.
Here is his answer:
This is an interesting historical question. I wish I could get David Mayer to answer it; he’s a professor of law and history with deep knowledge of the founding era (and a frequent speaker at our events, including this year’s Summit).
I take the point that people committed to “ideological purity”—whether Objectivists, Rothbardians, or any other—would not have worked well in the mix of viewpoints among the Founding Fathers. But the range of viewpoints then was narrower than today. As you note, there was a common commitment “to the principles of liberty.” As far as I know, there were no socialists among the Founding Fathers, no Bernie Sanders. In addition, independence from Great Britain was a specific, concrete goal. Rand herself, and most Objectivists, would be prepared to collaborate on a specific goal of that sort.
- - - - -
Read the entire exclusive Galt's Gulch interview with Dr. David Kelley: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
- - - - -
What do you think? Could Objectivists have founded the United States?
Given the rifts in the Objectivist community and even among the so called open side of Objectivism, do you think it would have been possible for a group of Objectivists to actually found the United States or to even participate in its founding?
It seems to me that most fundamental trait of the founding fathers was their willingness to work with others who had very different views of religion, philosophy, and government so long as they were dedicated to the principles of liberty and independence from Great Britain. I don't see any way that Objectivists could have been party to such an activity as freeing the colonies and developing a Constitution. All of which required a willingness to work with others and to compromise. Of course, their doing so meant risking their lives, their liberty, and their fortunes whereas, today, it might only mean a guest blog or voting for a less than ideal candidate.
Here is his answer:
This is an interesting historical question. I wish I could get David Mayer to answer it; he’s a professor of law and history with deep knowledge of the founding era (and a frequent speaker at our events, including this year’s Summit).
I take the point that people committed to “ideological purity”—whether Objectivists, Rothbardians, or any other—would not have worked well in the mix of viewpoints among the Founding Fathers. But the range of viewpoints then was narrower than today. As you note, there was a common commitment “to the principles of liberty.” As far as I know, there were no socialists among the Founding Fathers, no Bernie Sanders. In addition, independence from Great Britain was a specific, concrete goal. Rand herself, and most Objectivists, would be prepared to collaborate on a specific goal of that sort.
- - - - -
Read the entire exclusive Galt's Gulch interview with Dr. David Kelley: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/31...
- - - - -
What do you think? Could Objectivists have founded the United States?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I honestly don't think the Founding Fathers could have been successful as Objectivists unless they were willing to set aside their atheistic tenets, simply because at that time, more than 99% of the people were Christians of one persuasion or another. The Founders had to be able to appeal to that religious background and faith in order to rally the people - especially the armies. No logical appeal would have worked after the Continental Army suffered loss after loss at the hands of the superior British forces and their Hessian mercenaries. It was no logical appeal that led the soldiers to endure the suffering at Valley Forge.
To the common man, there is no logical appeal that is going to motivate people to lay down their lives in support of an ideal without the strength of conviction afforded by faith. The rational man would never have attempted to defy the most powerful armed force in the world at the time with handfuls of farmers and frontiersmen. Only someone so utterly steeped in their convictions and containing a self-determination that their acts would not be in vain - even ones resulting in their deaths - can lead to greatness such as we saw in the American Revolution. It is one thing to talk about principles, yet another entirely to act on them.
Today's freedom-oriented thinkers have so many issues to contend with--in a country that hasn't actually collapsed and therefore supports many successful people with a vested interest in a go-slow approach--that "warring factions" within an overall philosophy of freedom seem inevitable.
Then there's the basic factor that the Founders had the support of a large percentage of the population, whereas Objectivists and Libertarians have an incredible uphill battle simply to be understood by the larger society.
Refusing taxation at gun point, in order to be effective, requires guns of your own.
In either case King George would regard it as initiating force, whether it started with blows, gunfire, or a proclamation.
That starts the war, prosecuting it becomes a different kettle of fish.
The colonies won the war by NOT following the established "rules of warfare" of the time. Had they fought a "British" war they likely would have lost.
They attacked from ambush, were not always in uniform, attacked at night, etc. None of that happens if you are unwilling to initiate force.
Is the act of refusal to comply to taxation at gun point considered initiation of force?
I believe most objectivists would be able to collaborate and settle for something less than each individuals vision, just as the founders did. For the most part my interactions with objectivists has demonstrated to me that just adhering to the original intent of the Constitution would be tolerable and a big step forward.
Regards,
O.A.
Good to hear from you. :)
"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin
Regards.
O.A.
Opposing the initiation of force makes it hard to start a war of secession, and even harder to win one.