You have to understand Objectivism as an Enlightenment philosophy for which metaphysics and epistemology are fundamental and prerequisite to morality, ethics, and politics. Therefore, America was generally best aligned with (note the lower case) objectivism - rational empiricism, or the scientific method - from the beginning (1776), and drifted away by stages until by 1830 to 1860, it was clear that the philosophical foundation had been eroded.

Ethically, Americans generally never have been egoists. Although personal independence and the sanctity of personhood always have been important, those were implicit assumptions, never explicitly stated in terms we would recognize as "egoist" today. That kind of thinking only evolved in the 1830s to 1860s with little-known writings by Max Stirner, and a few others.

However, the secondary issues of politics and economics were dominant from about 1830 to about 1890. The Horatio Alger stories hallmarked the zenith of that ethos in America.

But, if you look at at the aesthetics of Objectivism, you see a continuation into our time, with Romantic cinema. And then, consider especially the "sense of life" in the psychological writings of Nathaniel Branden. From 1984, we saw the arrival of "Me Generation". But that was possible only because of the human potential movement, Gestalt psychology, and other (very non-O) theories that validated personal achievement and individual success, apart from social norms, apart from families of origin, etc. So, in that sense, America is far more "Objectivist" psychologically today, than we were in 1776.

You also have to define "America." It is a truism in the academic study of American History that "the American revolution" took place in the minds of colonists from 1763 to 1775. They understood their common need for political independence from Great Britain. The Revolutionary War followed from that. But "they" only refers to one-third of the population: others were opposed to independence; still others were ambivalent. So, you have to define "America."

The "documents" (Constitution, I assume you mean) are largely irrelevant as origins or causes, and only reflect the current state of the "national mind" (if such a thing exists). "Mr. Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it." -- Andrew Jackson. The Supreme Court has little power. We can laugh at them and walk away. We adhere to their rulings because we choose to. They reflect the "national mind" (again, assuming that any such thing - statistical as it must be - actually exists.)

What do you mean by "departure"? Do you suggest that we just declare the Age of Ego... and then what?

This is a complicated, multi-part question. (Are passing out grades... or a diploma for this tripos challenge?)

Jefferson thought that the republic might only last for 25 years. It has taken somewhat longer than the close alignment to objectivism in1776, but the erosion started almost immediately and has continued ever since. It has not gone straight down. There are times when it swelled closer to the ideal, but generally it has continued to decline. Actually, the garden of Eden is almost a perfect allegory. As to its documents, the myriad of damaging and unnecessary laws are too plentiful to pick out a few. At my age, I haven't the time for the research (Read the lyrics to "September Song.")

The start of the change was in 1913, and that fundamentally changed the US from a constitutionally-limited republic into a democracy, at least practically speaking.

I would say that America best aligned with Objectivist ideology from late 1865 to 1895.

The necessitation of departure was prompted by several events in 2008 (TARP,
the election of President Zero, Joe the Plumber, etc.)

Having read all of the very literate comments posted, I have concluded you all are much smarter than me,,but I am taking the question(s) asked literally.

When in is history did it best align with Objectivism?. I think the period between the Revolutionary war and the signing of the Constitution, say 1780 to 1789 was the period of true independence from tyrannical government crushing of freedom. While I do believe the Constitution is or was a mile stone document in the quest for a balance between anarchy and oppression, we as a country have lost our way. The originators saw the central government as the states employee and servant not the way it has convoluted to today.

What in its documents has changed to make the United States beyond saving? I think the specific document changes are the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments are standouts. BUT, there are many other factors such as the Supreme Court over reach and mission creep that are serious problems as well as entrenched regulatory and beurocratic thinking that has corrupted our system. An Administration that chooses what laws to enforce and sets rules outside the law. Heck, we can't even fire idiots in the Gov. I think the Republic is lost and not retrievable. The consequenses of that are still unfolding and the end result is quite scary to anticipate.

Hi Jan. I like your imagination. Just as long as we do not become the cartoon of folks sitting across the table texting each other.. Telecommuting myself, it is where your mind is. Regards

Excuse me, I don't think that the United States is
beyond recovery and restoration, necessitating de-
parture. Not yet. It is in bad trouble, granted. But
not yet hopeless. When did it best align with Ob-
jectivist ideology?--Hard to tell. There was a time when there was more freedom of enterprise
--basically. Before Roosevelt, and before the
Federal Reserve, and before the income tax, and
before all that anti-trust legislation. But in those
days, there was not all that much respect for
individual rights: women couldn't vote in some
states, blacks were frequently lynched, there
was a lot of racial discrimination, which is a sort
of collectivism. People who stood up for indi-
vid
ual rights often did so in the name of religion,
which means that they had not gotten it all that
straight philosophically. It got worse in some ways at the same time it was getting better in
others. Either way, it's always been pretty
messed up.--In its documents?---I guess the
16th Amendment. Some people would mention
the Amendment giving the Senators' elections
over to the vote of the people rather than the
state legislature, but I don't think so. I could live
with the state legislatures' electing the Senate,
but either way, I don't think it is nearly as im-
portant as Number 16. I think creating the Fed-
eral Reserve is pretty bad, though not as bad as
the income tax.--And a lot of the New Deal legis-
lation, plus the "Great Society".---If this country
is to be saved, I think one essential thing will
be the home-schooling movement. In spite
of the fact that some of these home-schooling
parents are religious, at least that is getting
the children, with their minds, out from
under the control of government, and
promoting free thought. (And remem-
ber the woman in "Atlas Shrugged" who
went to the Gulch because she wanted
to raise her children according to her
own values?)

I think the most important thing on the minds of the founding fathers was getting rid of the English rule over them. Thats how they formed their consensus for the documents that followed. The documents werent based on Objectivisim at all, or any other philosophy really- just set up to not have a repeat of English rule. Filled with "under god" stuff (meaning THEIR god, by the way, not any other gods). Land of the free- but most of them had slaves. Pursuit of happiness- except if you were Indian or Mormon, Mexican, and eventually southerners who wanted OUT. Its a wonder the constitution lasted as long as it is. Currently it is far beyond recovery, with generations of people pretty much agreeing these days with interventionism and socialism.

Self-interest is implicit in lowercase-o objectivism (rational empiricism). However, the egoism of Objectivism was discovered and elucidated by Ayn Rand from the 1930s through 1960s. Self-interest was never before announced as a proper way of life. We only had altruism in various forms.

Metaphysics and epistemology were somewhat more clearly understood by "natural philosophers" (scientists and inventors). But, again, Berkeley, Hume, and Locke and the others just found pieces of the truth, and never integrated them into a consistent philosophy. The word "scientist" was coined only in the 1830s. So, there was no consistent philosophy that could be labeled "proto-Objectivism."

Back in the early 1960s, at one of the college campuses, an admirer of Ayn Rand offered several examples of such "early Objectivism." Rand accepted that those people said or did heroic or admirable things, but they were not Objectivists because the philosophy had not been invented (or discovered) yet.

Inventors and entrepreneurs generally justified themselves in terms of their service to humanity.

Even immigrants seldom expressed basic selfishness as their motive, claiming instead to want to build a better life for their children. That is a selfish motive, indeed, but it was never expressed as such.

That is why in my earlier comments, I pointed to long threads of history in which the foundations and implications of Objectivism -- reality, reason, egoism, capitalism, romantic realism, and the psychology of self-esteem -- were broadly but only implicitly accepted, at different times.

16th amendment eliminated self-regulating controls on the government and turned it into a self-licking ice cream cone. This has to be the turning point. Then the grotesque deficit spending from the New Deal further unbounded the unstable system.

Others have identified philosophical precursors, that were problems too, but looking from Mars, unbridled government taxing and spending were the turning point.

Great discussion. Great posting. Very educational!

The late 19th century and early twentieth century were probably the US ever got close to A. Rands philosophy. Maybe, just beyond WW2. After that point in time gov't growth was exponential and industrial growth in the US declined and left the country.

I think it started long before the country was formed. Based on my knowledge of history I would say that it started in 1607 with the founding of James Town.

It was to be the grand experiment in what was then called communal living. Basically an early form of communism. It failed horribly for two years. Killing around 10k people in the process.

The third year brought John Smith and a change. Every man would own the land they cleared and be taxed 2 barrels of whatever they grew for the community to get through the winter on.

Everything changed. Nearly half of the men that signed the declaration of independence families had linage from Georgetown in them.

Any concept of the hell of collectivism of any kind had to be a nightmare to those that lived through the incredible hardship and loss it produced. It also gave life to a group of people who had heard the stories and shaped there minds towards a better way.

The echos of that experience are seen in the attitudes of the people in 1776 and the years that lead up to it.

However the government did not align in anyway at any point, it was only through individuals continuing to fight for what the constitution gave them that we had a somewhat Capitalist country for a while. As soon as the federal government existed it decided to tax one group (Whiskey producers) to pay for the debt of the country. Not capitalism and not objective. The government provided exclusive water rights to the Livingston in New York (overturned by the drive of Vanderbilt as a young man and the money of Gibbons backing him - Gibbons verses Ogden 1815). Andrew Jackson drive individual rights as president, he has some problems but in this area we owe him a bit. History even refers to it as the Jacksonian era.

It is in the nature and interest of people in government to build collectives. They always have and always will. If there is one man that is most responsible for the failure to defend himself and the individual it is John D. Rockefeller who did nothing to protect his rights to own his company, he in effect handed the power over to government and his son became a "do gooder" that pushed for reform that controlled business and the individual so that one could not be so successful as to gain to much power. Unlike the Vanderbilt money 5% of world economy and nearly 10% of US economy which was gone in a generation, or the J.P. Morgan money (protected by government friendships) the Rockefeller money went into foundations, some of which gave huge support to the creation of early government programs. It was very much like Atlas shows it, a few large enterprises built by the original owner jumped in bed with government and together they destroyed the country.

The lesson that should be learned is this. Separation of State and business should be just as absolute as separation of state and religion. I would also add what I think is an obvious third, state and science should also be separated with the same absolute nature. That is really redundant with a separation of state and business but needed as state would start to fund research, rather than business and the problem would creep in again.

I think it started to drift away even before the last of the forefathers passed away. Some of the changes came under Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts. Then Madison vs. Marbury changed government. The Great War Between the States changed a lot on how the feds ruled over the states and then the 16th and 17th Amendments in 1913 changed the US forever.

The original documents, philosophy and moral values of America were more in line with Objectivist principles than at any later time.

We still have enough freedoms in this country albeit with a tremendous drag of regulation, micromanagement and meddling by the current corrupted government system so that Physical departure is not necessary unless the government becomes totalitarian.

However if we depart from the current group think we have a chance for restoration and recovery and that is the Constitutional Amendment process.

You can find and answer to exactly what went wrong and how to fix it with amendments and a code of Foundational American Values here:
http://www.TheSocietyProject.org

I imagine the government aligning with Objectivist ideas in the late 19 century, but I may be romanticizing that period. Obviously the gov't is not objectivist, and this is a grave concern.

As for when the people have been able to best align with objectivist ideology, it could be right now. We have the ability to spread our ideas everywhere almost for free. We have the ability to sell things to almost anyone anywhere. Science has been influencing people's lives, so more people accept the idea of understanding the world rationally based on observation and experiment. We indulge in our homeopathy, but when we really need something done we turn to science. We don't have to live in a large city with a university library to get the latest scientific information. Even in rural places, we can access information from great libraries on our phones. Resolving disputes with force, formerly something that even a vice-president might do, is now thought of a low-life behavior.