Even at the founding, our forefathers realised that slaves were human machines...however they knew enough about the progress of civilization that eventually the slaves would be replaced with something that the human mind would invent.
With freedom to pursue thought this eventually happened.
I often surmise that the Civil War was needless because mechanized farming was well on its way by 1862.

self-reliance.

I would not put greenies and preppers in the same bin: the former oppose technology, the latter are aware that technology can fail. I agree that technological civilization requires the partition of labor (Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley both bring abundant data to the support of this idea). If we each farm our own plot and raise our own cattle, we will return to a low level of civilization. I do not want to go backwards to that point - I want technology to continue.

But the requirements for doing that are subject to modification. Let us say that we did have a dependable, local source of power. Let us also imagine that 3D printers go another few steps in development. It would then be possible for people to be spread out over the world, with work partitioned on a virtual, rather than a physical, basis. Their technology could remain high tech because they could print out new designs, clothes, even food, and a newer version of their 3D printer can be delivered by drone when their old one gets too ancient to bother upgrading any more. Even now, we are on the edge of this type of society, with virtual networks of companies and social groups (ahem. The Gulch), and that trend might continue.

Even with no ground-shaking new developments, the tech we have now is producing marked changes in our society. I think that we are in a virtual Gulch and that might be the most plausible place to live. It might not matter where your feet are planted, just where your mind is.

Jan

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.

Please remember that the Valley in AS was possible because of a cheap dependable power source.
They brought in much of the machinery and evidently the power source allowed them to alter nature to the extent that they had fresh fruits and vegetables in all seasons.

I think that Ayn was saying that the possibilities for happiness are endless with cheap motive power.

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.

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 only problem that I see in your timeline is slavery. And it is a major problem to me to say that any government founded on and incorporating the institution of slavery is truly "objectivist". I think Jefferson knew that this was an issue and would lead to a possible fundamental break.

largely agree.

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.)

Only one problem with your list: most of them are socialists - Gates and Zuckerberg first and foremost. I'd add Soros and Buffett to that list as well. The list of people who are true capitalists AND inventors is actually quite small. That's part of the problem with today's world and why the fiction of AS was for a different time: most of the wealthy in today's world are both smart AND (unfortunately) endeared with the one-world government.

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

Mike,
excellent explanation.

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.

Not so far fetched, just early in its implementation: Mars, the Moon, Titan...

"But there are fewer and fewer remote places not owned by someone or some country."
Yes. I love the idea of the hidden Gulch in AS. I fancy the idea of people trying it, but IMHO an ideal "gulch" would be not hidden but sort-of under-the-radar. The simplest, albeit technologically implausible, is a space station of some sort where people do research and produce some high-margin items that require micro-gravity to produce. More plausible might be a community in a zona franca (economic development zone) in a remote part of some country. I realize this is a fantastical notion, but I could see elements of it coming true.

"The government does not align with Objectivist values. But society in America... does seem to accept psychological and cultural individualism"
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Self-Interest has always been the bedrock of the American people and those coming to this country. Its that self-interest that aligns with objectivism and is more accurately the foundation that Constitutional Conservatives wish to preserve.

I think that the acceptance of objectivist metaphysics was more accepted in the early republic was less philosophical (or deliberate) and more practical. By this I mean, people were more spread out, they had far less methods of even moderately quick communication, and much more time to be "self" and self-dependent in the world. The Constitution was meant as a broad blanket to lend structure spread-out, independent people, that had no need or tolerance for a nanny-state.

The shame of it is how long that mentality lasted and how quickly, and recently, it left this country.

The government does not align with Objectivist values. But society in America - and the idea of America as accepted globally - does seem to accept psychological and cultural individualism.

Long ago, about 1973, Sandy Shaw, writing as Natalee Hall, spun a yarn about a libertarian outpost along Hudson's Bay. Today, drug smugglers use submarines. You can rent one to go down to the Titanic with a tour guide. That opens up the continental shelves. Consider the Antarctic... Back in 1998 or so, I went to a meeting of a local AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) in Ohio, where the FAA said that they wanted to have half the pilots in Alaska licensed by the end of the decade. That drew a laugh from the audience.

See my reply above.

Yes, philosophy is not a single thing. We talk about the importance of Aristotle via Aquinas in the 13th century, but that also led to the persecution of Galileo for countering Aristotle in the 17th century. So, as I said, Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology were more (implicity) accepted in the early Republic, but Objectivist economics flourished later, and Objectivist psychology seems ascending today.

But there are fewer and fewer remote places not owned by someone or some country.

Your neighbors always have been busybodies. Read The Scarlet Letter. Even today some people wring their hands over "broken homes" and "single parent households." I agree that more parents in the home is a good idea. But the statistics about "broken homes" do not count active aunts and grandmothers around whom the family survives, thrives, and flourishes. But, largely, that concern for the "family" from cultural conservatives is more about busy body gossips wanting police powers or else they would recognize the extended matriarchal family for what it is.

My daughter met a newspaper editor who told her about a secret government project whose emblem is an octopus over the world. I found this: the National Reconnaissance Office (Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa.... One of their other mottos is "MELIOR DIABOLUS QUEM SAPIES" (better the devil you know). For the octopus over the world, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

Personally, I am willing to suspect that laissez faire capitalism and commercial ethics would destroy Islamic Jihad, just as it - not nuclear arsenals - destroyed communism. (See Bruce Springsteen "Chimes of Freedom" in East Berlin 1988 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_hQi...

On the other hand... when you wake up in the middle of night because an intruder is in your home, killing him is better than discussing ethics. So, yes, let surveillance continue because Iran totally sucks and the NSA is staffed by American nerds.