7 ms·

Jefferson and America's Lost Idea: Natural Aristocracy

40 points by the_bookmaker 3y ago

palmfacehn 3y ago
https://mises.org/library/natural-elites-intellectuals-and-state https://mises.org/library/natural-elites-intellectuals-and-s... Hoppe offers an interesting perspective on, "Natural Elites" and how they relate to democratic institutions. >While the state fared much better under democratic rule, and while the "people" have fared much worse since they began to rule "themselves," what about the natural elites and the intellectuals? As regards the former, democratization has succeeded where kings made only a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elite and nobility. The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families' tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten. >Rich men exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortunes directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state's continued favors than many people of far-lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but "nouveaux riches." Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else. Consequently — and thank goodness — their opinions carry no more weight in public opinion than most other people's. >Democracy has achieved what Keynes only dreamt of: the "euthanasia of the rentier class." Keynes's statement that "in the long run we are all dead" accurately expresses the democratic spirit of our times: present-oriented hedonism. Although it is perverse not to think beyond one's own life, such thinking has become typical. Instead of ennobling the proletarians, democracy has proletarianized the elites and has systematically perverted the thinking and judgment of the masses.
dash2 3y ago
Those guys took an open-minded view about natural aristocracy, though! It wasn't just about virtuous exertions... here's a quote from Adams to Jefferson, on Emma Hamilton [1]: > A daughter of a green Grocer, walks the Streets in London dayly with a baskett of Cabbage Sprouts, Dandelions and Spinage on her head. She is observed by the Painters to have a beautiful Face, an elegant figure, a graceful Step and a debonair. They hire her to Sitt. She complies, and is painted by forty Artists, in a Circle around her. The Scientific Sir William Hamilton outbids the Painters, Sends her to Schools for a genteel Education and Marries her. This Lady not only causes the Tryumphs of the Nile of Copenhagen and Trafalgar, but Seperates Naples from France and finally banishes the King and Queen from Sicilly. Such is the Aristocracy of the natural Talent of Beauty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  Wondering how much of that was him expecting to get laid potentially
Frummy 3y ago
I would’ve liked the article more if it wasn’t written by a so called natural aristocrat, feels like a new aristocrat basking in the strength of his “natural” VC upper class. Also with palantir, defence profit is still war profit, well in my opinion palantir is just a huge tech bootlicker of government.
bradley13 3y ago
"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." This is self-evidently true. One of the problems in current society is fetish for equity, the idea that everyone should be treated the same, regardless of their talents and virtues. Some people are smart, some are dumb. Some are generous, some are narcissistic. Those who are talented and virtuous are the one we need in charge of society. It is important, indeed essential, to discriminate: to prefer the smart and virtuous over the dumb and selfish. "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth." Unfortunately, these are the actual people currently in charge of society. The wealthy, political elite - be it the Kennedy clan of Massachusetts or the Dassault clan of France - they wield the levers of power, sometimes openly and sometimes behind the scenes. Far from any feeling of noblesse oblige, they wield this power for their own purposes.
- socrates137 3y ago
  In one sense I agree with you. I don’t usually like to claim something is self-evident, but nonetheless, I think it’s clear to most that there is a great deal of variety in skill, intelligence, and virtue across the average human population. I think it’s also true that we should strive to have those who are the most knowledgeable and the most virtuous to lead. That would include a degree of humility, so that those in charge may also listen to the advice of more knowledgeable experts in certain fields. On the other hand, I’m not really sure I’d place the blame same as you do. In fact, a focus on equity is meant to eliminate the factors that get in the way of meritocratic hierarchies (such as inherited wealth, for instance). I’ll admit, I would rather we pursue justice to eliminate the source of these factors, but the powerful are not interested. Either way, I’m not sure what the answer is. Democracy in all its forms is imperfect, and even terrible at times. But there aren’t really any good alternatives in the real and imperfect world of imperfect human beings. Philosopher kings are great on paper and on paper only. So that always brings me back to better education, less corruption, democracy, and a culture of respect towards those more virtuous and to experts in their respective fields.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > I don’t usually like to claim something is self-evident > Democracy in all its forms is imperfect, and even terrible at times. But there aren’t really any good alternatives in the real and imperfect world of imperfect human beings. Hmmmm. > Philosopher kings are great on paper and on paper only. Hmmm. > So that always brings me back to better education In?
jgalt212 3y ago
Without ZIRP and QE, no one would know who Joe Lonsdale and half that self-appointed public intellectuals / aristocrats are.
jshaqaw 3y ago
“Quite the contrary. Jefferson called this the “natural aristocracy” — an elite based not on wealth or birth, but on virtue and talent” - Jefferson was a guy who based on the wealth he was born into owned humans born into that role. Let the downvotes begin!
- tomjen3 3y ago
  There is no reason to downvote a true statement, but it can perhaps be simplified somewhat in that Jefferson did not consider his slaves fully human, thus they can never be part of the natural aristocracy. Good enough to rape, sure. Good enough to cook his food and clean his clothes but not good enough to lead.
woodruffw 3y ago
Invariably, the people most interested in the formation of a “true” aristocracy are the ones who expect to (1) be labeled as “genuine” aristocrats, and (2) benefit most greatly and directly. It should come as no surprise that the author is one such person[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_8
- InSteady 3y ago
  It seems like an appeal to certain billionaires to be more audacious and inventive when it comes to their philanthropic and prosocial pursuits. He puts particular emphasis on educational institutions, alluding to a higher purpose than simply donating more millions into the bloated endowment industry. Which tends to be resistant to large scale innovation within its own sphere (MOOCs are a great idea, but they don't seem to have bootstrapped into actual institutions on their own standing like they might have). It doesn't seem like he's advocating for new special powers for a new special in-group so much as waxing thoughtfully about what better to do with what they already have. It's easy enough to be cynical about his motivations. Maybe the distinction of being a "natural aristocrat" is merely self-serving and conceited. But we have aristocrats whether we like it or not. Perhaps a subset of the modern aristocracy might be more naturally aligned with his idealistic notions, and thus heed a calling to transformatively serve the public out of which they rose. I personally can forgive a bit of hubris if it is wielded responsibly and aimed at lofty, altruistic goals (because I'm a total sucker for that kind of rhetoric).
- supertrope 3y ago
  Just like how philosophers advocated for benevolent enlightened philosopher kings.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    Yep. There’s a good basic underlying principle to be found here: practice skepticism towards any system or philosophy that has a logical conclusion in the natural or preternatural right of its leaders to rule.
lukeasrodgers 3y ago
It is hard to see this as anything other than pure American ideology. There is no critical thought in this essay, it's like a high school "why was the constitution cool and stuff" exercise. > The American founders put Cicero’s framework into practice, and they created the most successful mixed constitution in history, whereby the people would frequently elect representatives from among themselves to the House of Representatives. By "the people" you mean the leaving aside the ~600,000 enslaved along with all the women and native people who could not vote.
- hfuyf65 3y ago
  You seem to be ignoring political realities on the ground by framing it this way. I am not certain it helps the discussion.
  - lukeasrodgers 3y ago
    I don’t believe I am ignoring the political realities. The way I see it, slavery was a hotly contested political issue in America at the time. In another comment of yours in this thread you mention “the exclusions that were made with defaults” but I see no evidence that these were truly the defaults in the way that, eg slavery in ancient Greece (my knowledge of Ancient Rome is fairly basic so I can’t comment on that) was a default that few if any members of the polis questioned. The framers of the constitution absolutely inhabited a moral world in which it was possible to denounce slavery for the abomination it was.
  - meepmorp 3y ago
    > You seem to be ignoring political realities on the ground by framing it this way. Could you expand on what you mean here, particularly as regards the comment you're responding to?
    - hfuyf65 3y ago
      << By "the people" you mean the leaving aside the ~600,000 enslaved along with all the women and native people who could not vote. On cell so I don't really want to write a whole essay. The poster focused exclusively on the excluded without considering that the exclusions that were made with defaults that do not align with today's values. It is almost like complaining about Romans severely puniahing their slaves for disobedience. It completely ignores the reality of the world the person lives in and judges them based on today's expectations. The 600k op mentioned were not relevant to his 'constituency' or one he seemed to speak for, and, arguably, Jeffeson himself. From his perspective, they were not more capable set of men.
motohagiography 3y ago
The opposite of aristocracy's "rule by the best," is kakistocracy's "rule by the worst," which is proabably how most empires and civilizations end. The thing about being an aristocrat is it isn't enough to be noble, you have to prevail, which is the "-crat" part. A lot of what happened appears to be people solving for the -cracy part, and when you have that, who cares what kind of -crat others think you are. In that view, power is its own justification and end, and an aristocracy of occupiers is a contradiction. Nobility is still possible in a kakistocracy where there is the possibility of some freedom and dissent, but I think what defined the dystopias of the 20th century was that the societies were so deeply compromised that even individual dignity was almost impossible. For a consensus to emerge that someone had any dignity at all made them an immediate target because it reminded others that they were reduced to crabs in a bucket, and so they policed themselves. Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire. It's pretty far off today, but it's a useful reference point for what's possible. The foundation for that dignity was the American concept that you can achieve dignity by taking liberty and preserving it. We get concerned today about efforts to crush dissent, but without understanding why it's so important to the people doing it. The reason they crush dissent is to liquidate any dignity that could yield a consensus of nobility that stands as a counter-example to their undesirability and illigitimacy. Nobility acts as a waypoint and ideal that reveals and coordinates honest desire in others. This is the thing tyrants and technocrats hate and fear the most because their whole understanding of winning is when they prevail over the desires of others. It's a kind of sickness, but unless you can choose some individual dignity that yields nobility and organize to establish a legitimate and desirable aristocracy, you get the government you deserve. I still think there is the possibility of a natural aristocracy, but they've got a very steep climb ahead of them.
- jonstewart 3y ago
  > Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire. If only Jefferson could have upheld his own ideals, but, like the author, the only aspect of his life that could equal his self-regard was his hypocrisy.
jonstewart 3y ago
Palantir found a niche in the Pentagon during the GWOT, by making it easier to justify killing people halfway around the world, though tenuous relationships (and concomitant pretty pictures) to Al Qaeda. Despite a decade+ of flopping around in the market, it has failed to find success outside its niche. Its cofounders nevertheless continue to evangelize their dark enlightenment ideals — Jefferson? really? a man with every advantage who died a pauper and a hypocrite — and we're all poorer for it.
ncphil 3y ago
Meritocracy is tyranny by another name. "Natural" aristocrats are still aristocrats, and being aristocrats it is their "natural" inclination to take power in their own personal and (when they are numerous enough to be organized in a coherent group) institutional interests. Meritocracy is a another false god, like its cousin, money. It is dangerous because it is exclusive, and self-reinforcing. Technologists, of all people, should be the first to recognize how vacuous and pernicious such an anti-egalitarian approach is, and should be repelled by it: because we know how empty and meaningless our own relative merit, based on our fortuitous collection of specialized knowledge and skills, is. Am I really better, morally, ethically, or spiritually, than someone who _doesn't_ know how to patch an Oracle database? Even the landscapers blowing leaves into the street next door know that forcibly asserting ownership of another human being is wrong, yet this seems to have escaped the superior intellect of "the Founding Fathers" (who my own ancestors, having emigrated as impoverished peasants from Italy at the turn of the last century, had no connection with: something they sadly later forgot). Jefferson was a slaver, an oppressor of the weak, and a rapist, and the majority of high society and Congress were (and are) accessories before and after the fact. The US Civil War was an aberration, because it was one of the few times that the schemes of one part of the oligarchy coincided with the growing disgust of the commons with a horrendous institution (chattel slavery). The moral outrage over slavery seen in the diaries of Union soldiers didn't disappear with the Confederacy's defeat, but the interests of the oligarchs worked against the success of Reconstruction and the later imposition of Jim Crow (whose legal framework provided inspiration for 20th century fascism in places like Germany). We loosely categorize ancient Rome as a civilization. It was an oligarchic slave state, as were the later European and American empires. The main difference between them seems to be the mechanisms of slavery employed. In 21st century America we still have a feudal model of governance in most workplaces, and in governments bought and paid for by unfettered oligarch cash, the will of the common people, to the extent that its expression is able to pierce the corporate media bubble, is mostly ignored or explained away.
- vinay_ys 3y ago
  You sound like James Burnam.
- 6502nerdface 3y ago
wwwpatdelcom 3y ago
Something that we Americans are very conveniently forgetful of is that America didn't just pop out of no where on July 4th, 1776, there was in fact a huge history of us being England and that includes every single quote from every single founding father, there was additional historical context and ignoring that is basically propaganda on the level of Soviet Union or North Korea style propaganda, it's just that we don't think it's propaganda because we think we're exceptional. I became more skeptical of this piece of propaganda when I saw the top comment from prominent COVID origins conspiracy theorist and statistics misuser on Substack (who evidently uses the pseudonym Yuri Bezmenov?) on the post, as well as likes from Academic Capture extroidinaire Richard Hanania, of the Salem Institute at UT-Austin (a business school whose name is emblazoned by a now dead billionaire to whom I as a Minnesota citizen, personally pay taxes to his estate to every time I buy food, in the form of subsidies to his Vikings stadium). Basically I'm sitting here being lectured by people about Aristocracies while I, as a nobody schlub, pay taxes to a private party they are friends with every time I get groceries, and meanwhile see schools nearby me go on strike, there is no free daycare in Minneapolis while there is in other cities nearby because, "it's not fiscally responsible?" Ok, well I'm not an "economist," at an, "institute," so what do I know? Anyway, I was very confused after reading this by the claim that Jefferson would not have considered himself part of the Artificial Aristocracy so I had to read about his family history. From Monticello.org: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/jeffersons-ancestry/ https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers... > The origins of Jefferson's ancestors might be uncertain, but there can be no doubt that within a couple of generations the family had risen from the humble rank of "middling planter" to the county elite, and within another to the very pinnacle of society. Their spectacular rise in fortune was the result of hard work, advantageous marriage, and sheer good luck So what I read this is, is his family were not part of the English Aristocracy, (like Washington) but go in early on Virginia Real Estate in the 1600s, which allowed Jefferson to become part of the Colonial Aristocracy (though not the formal English Aristocracy). So Jefferson is saying, "no, that Aristocracy is not cool, bro, our Aristocracy is the cool one." It also seems that some of Jefferson's ancestors were very anti-monarchy during the English Civil War, and lost a lot of fortune upon the restoration of the monarchy, so it's super understandable why Jefferson would take this position. The thing is, I believe Jefferson may have become a dinosaur in his own time, writing letters to Adams to re-assure himself, but actually just discussing the types of ideas that would have appealed to some of the characters straight out of Barry Lyndon. E.g., he probably was witnessing Aristocrats getting their heads cut off in France and going, "no we're not those guys, we're a natural Aristocracy, it's totally different man!" Jefferson was a huge Ancient Rome nerd because he was interested in creating a society that was durable, where other societies had failed an while I believe that some of his ideas that lead to a sort of weighting of rural areas does provide stability, because cities always end up being more powerful than rural areas, I'm pretty sure that the 1800's and early 1900's was a round rejection of Aristocracy, but of course there's no way he could have seen that. Venture Capitalists, pretend Professors from UT-Austin business school who are hired help to form an intellectual framework behind Rick Scott's agendas, they know better than this, and they should do better. This is basically a circle jerk with almost zero self-awareness about how Universally hated Aristocracy of any kind is, it's like how John Bolton has been talking about running for President in 2024, there is absolutely zero self awareness about how hated and loathed a particular idea is. Edit: Oh yeah, and also, you can't mention that Jefferson owned slaves and so maybe not every idea that came off of the top of his head should be celebrated because evidently just acknowledging that fact might be considered, "woke" according to Hanania, most likely.

40 points by the_bookmaker 3y ago

https://mises.org/library/natural-elites-intellectuals-and-state https://mises.org/library/natural-elites-intellectuals-and-s... Hoppe offers an interesting perspective on, "Natural Elites" and how they relate to democratic institutions. >While the state fared much better under democratic rule, and while the "people" have fared much worse since they began to rule "themselves," what about the natural elites and the intellectuals? As regards the former, democratization has succeeded where kings made only a modest beginning: in the ultimate destruction of the natural elite and nobility. The fortunes of the great families have dissipated through confiscatory taxes, during life and at the time of death. These families' tradition of economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership have been lost and forgotten. >Rich men exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortunes directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state's continued favors than many people of far-lesser wealth. They are typically no longer the heads of long-established leading families, but "nouveaux riches." Their conduct is not characterized by virtue, wisdom, dignity, or taste, but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientation, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich and famous now share with everyone else. Consequently — and thank goodness — their opinions carry no more weight in public opinion than most other people's. >Democracy has achieved what Keynes only dreamt of: the "euthanasia of the rentier class." Keynes's statement that "in the long run we are all dead" accurately expresses the democratic spirit of our times: present-oriented hedonism. Although it is perverse not to think beyond one's own life, such thinking has become typical. Instead of ennobling the proletarians, democracy has proletarianized the elites and has systematically perverted the thinking and judgment of the masses.

dash2 3y ago

Those guys took an open-minded view about natural aristocracy, though! It wasn't just about virtuous exertions... here's a quote from Adams to Jefferson, on Emma Hamilton [1]: > A daughter of a green Grocer, walks the Streets in London dayly with a baskett of Cabbage Sprouts, Dandelions and Spinage on her head. She is observed by the Painters to have a beautiful Face, an elegant figure, a graceful Step and a debonair. They hire her to Sitt. She complies, and is painted by forty Artists, in a Circle around her. The Scientific Sir William Hamilton outbids the Painters, Sends her to Schools for a genteel Education and Marries her. This Lady not only causes the Tryumphs of the Nile of Copenhagen and Trafalgar, but Seperates Naples from France and finally banishes the King and Queen from Sicilly. Such is the Aristocracy of the natural Talent of Beauty. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton

heavenlyblue 3y ago
Wondering how much of that was him expecting to get laid potentially

Frummy 3y ago

I would’ve liked the article more if it wasn’t written by a so called natural aristocrat, feels like a new aristocrat basking in the strength of his “natural” VC upper class. Also with palantir, defence profit is still war profit, well in my opinion palantir is just a huge tech bootlicker of government.

bradley13 3y ago

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." This is self-evidently true. One of the problems in current society is fetish for equity, the idea that everyone should be treated the same, regardless of their talents and virtues. Some people are smart, some are dumb. Some are generous, some are narcissistic. Those who are talented and virtuous are the one we need in charge of society. It is important, indeed essential, to discriminate: to prefer the smart and virtuous over the dumb and selfish. "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth." Unfortunately, these are the actual people currently in charge of society. The wealthy, political elite - be it the Kennedy clan of Massachusetts or the Dassault clan of France - they wield the levers of power, sometimes openly and sometimes behind the scenes. Far from any feeling of noblesse oblige, they wield this power for their own purposes.

socrates137 3y ago
In one sense I agree with you. I don’t usually like to claim something is self-evident, but nonetheless, I think it’s clear to most that there is a great deal of variety in skill, intelligence, and virtue across the average human population. I think it’s also true that we should strive to have those who are the most knowledgeable and the most virtuous to lead. That would include a degree of humility, so that those in charge may also listen to the advice of more knowledgeable experts in certain fields. On the other hand, I’m not really sure I’d place the blame same as you do. In fact, a focus on equity is meant to eliminate the factors that get in the way of meritocratic hierarchies (such as inherited wealth, for instance). I’ll admit, I would rather we pursue justice to eliminate the source of these factors, but the powerful are not interested. Either way, I’m not sure what the answer is. Democracy in all its forms is imperfect, and even terrible at times. But there aren’t really any good alternatives in the real and imperfect world of imperfect human beings. Philosopher kings are great on paper and on paper only. So that always brings me back to better education, less corruption, democracy, and a culture of respect towards those more virtuous and to experts in their respective fields.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > I don’t usually like to claim something is self-evident > Democracy in all its forms is imperfect, and even terrible at times. But there aren’t really any good alternatives in the real and imperfect world of imperfect human beings. Hmmmm. > Philosopher kings are great on paper and on paper only. Hmmm. > So that always brings me back to better education In?

jgalt212 3y ago

Without ZIRP and QE, no one would know who Joe Lonsdale and half that self-appointed public intellectuals / aristocrats are.

jshaqaw 3y ago

“Quite the contrary. Jefferson called this the “natural aristocracy” — an elite based not on wealth or birth, but on virtue and talent” - Jefferson was a guy who based on the wealth he was born into owned humans born into that role. Let the downvotes begin!

tomjen3 3y ago
There is no reason to downvote a true statement, but it can perhaps be simplified somewhat in that Jefferson did not consider his slaves fully human, thus they can never be part of the natural aristocracy. Good enough to rape, sure. Good enough to cook his food and clean his clothes but not good enough to lead.

woodruffw 3y ago

Invariably, the people most interested in the formation of a “true” aristocracy are the ones who expect to (1) be labeled as “genuine” aristocrats, and (2) benefit most greatly and directly. It should come as no surprise that the author is one such person[1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_8

InSteady 3y ago
It seems like an appeal to certain billionaires to be more audacious and inventive when it comes to their philanthropic and prosocial pursuits. He puts particular emphasis on educational institutions, alluding to a higher purpose than simply donating more millions into the bloated endowment industry. Which tends to be resistant to large scale innovation within its own sphere (MOOCs are a great idea, but they don't seem to have bootstrapped into actual institutions on their own standing like they might have). It doesn't seem like he's advocating for new special powers for a new special in-group so much as waxing thoughtfully about what better to do with what they already have. It's easy enough to be cynical about his motivations. Maybe the distinction of being a "natural aristocrat" is merely self-serving and conceited. But we have aristocrats whether we like it or not. Perhaps a subset of the modern aristocracy might be more naturally aligned with his idealistic notions, and thus heed a calling to transformatively serve the public out of which they rose. I personally can forgive a bit of hubris if it is wielded responsibly and aimed at lofty, altruistic goals (because I'm a total sucker for that kind of rhetoric).
supertrope 3y ago
Just like how philosophers advocated for benevolent enlightened philosopher kings.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Yep. There’s a good basic underlying principle to be found here: practice skepticism towards any system or philosophy that has a logical conclusion in the natural or preternatural right of its leaders to rule.

lukeasrodgers 3y ago

It is hard to see this as anything other than pure American ideology. There is no critical thought in this essay, it's like a high school "why was the constitution cool and stuff" exercise. > The American founders put Cicero’s framework into practice, and they created the most successful mixed constitution in history, whereby the people would frequently elect representatives from among themselves to the House of Representatives. By "the people" you mean the leaving aside the ~600,000 enslaved along with all the women and native people who could not vote.

hfuyf65 3y ago
You seem to be ignoring political realities on the ground by framing it this way. I am not certain it helps the discussion.
- lukeasrodgers 3y ago
  I don’t believe I am ignoring the political realities. The way I see it, slavery was a hotly contested political issue in America at the time. In another comment of yours in this thread you mention “the exclusions that were made with defaults” but I see no evidence that these were truly the defaults in the way that, eg slavery in ancient Greece (my knowledge of Ancient Rome is fairly basic so I can’t comment on that) was a default that few if any members of the polis questioned. The framers of the constitution absolutely inhabited a moral world in which it was possible to denounce slavery for the abomination it was.
- meepmorp 3y ago
  > You seem to be ignoring political realities on the ground by framing it this way. Could you expand on what you mean here, particularly as regards the comment you're responding to?
  - hfuyf65 3y ago
    << By "the people" you mean the leaving aside the ~600,000 enslaved along with all the women and native people who could not vote. On cell so I don't really want to write a whole essay. The poster focused exclusively on the excluded without considering that the exclusions that were made with defaults that do not align with today's values. It is almost like complaining about Romans severely puniahing their slaves for disobedience. It completely ignores the reality of the world the person lives in and judges them based on today's expectations. The 600k op mentioned were not relevant to his 'constituency' or one he seemed to speak for, and, arguably, Jeffeson himself. From his perspective, they were not more capable set of men.

motohagiography 3y ago

The opposite of aristocracy's "rule by the best," is kakistocracy's "rule by the worst," which is proabably how most empires and civilizations end. The thing about being an aristocrat is it isn't enough to be noble, you have to prevail, which is the "-crat" part. A lot of what happened appears to be people solving for the -cracy part, and when you have that, who cares what kind of -crat others think you are. In that view, power is its own justification and end, and an aristocracy of occupiers is a contradiction. Nobility is still possible in a kakistocracy where there is the possibility of some freedom and dissent, but I think what defined the dystopias of the 20th century was that the societies were so deeply compromised that even individual dignity was almost impossible. For a consensus to emerge that someone had any dignity at all made them an immediate target because it reminded others that they were reduced to crabs in a bucket, and so they policed themselves. Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire. It's pretty far off today, but it's a useful reference point for what's possible. The foundation for that dignity was the American concept that you can achieve dignity by taking liberty and preserving it. We get concerned today about efforts to crush dissent, but without understanding why it's so important to the people doing it. The reason they crush dissent is to liquidate any dignity that could yield a consensus of nobility that stands as a counter-example to their undesirability and illigitimacy. Nobility acts as a waypoint and ideal that reveals and coordinates honest desire in others. This is the thing tyrants and technocrats hate and fear the most because their whole understanding of winning is when they prevail over the desires of others. It's a kind of sickness, but unless you can choose some individual dignity that yields nobility and organize to establish a legitimate and desirable aristocracy, you get the government you deserve. I still think there is the possibility of a natural aristocracy, but they've got a very steep climb ahead of them.

jonstewart 3y ago
> Jefferson's natural aristocracy was an ideal that encouraged people to have dignity and develop nobility, with the hope that they can prevail in their own governments - and establish an aristocracy that has the legitimacy of popular desire. If only Jefferson could have upheld his own ideals, but, like the author, the only aspect of his life that could equal his self-regard was his hypocrisy.

jonstewart 3y ago

Palantir found a niche in the Pentagon during the GWOT, by making it easier to justify killing people halfway around the world, though tenuous relationships (and concomitant pretty pictures) to Al Qaeda. Despite a decade+ of flopping around in the market, it has failed to find success outside its niche. Its cofounders nevertheless continue to evangelize their dark enlightenment ideals — Jefferson? really? a man with every advantage who died a pauper and a hypocrite — and we're all poorer for it.

ncphil 3y ago

Meritocracy is tyranny by another name. "Natural" aristocrats are still aristocrats, and being aristocrats it is their "natural" inclination to take power in their own personal and (when they are numerous enough to be organized in a coherent group) institutional interests. Meritocracy is a another false god, like its cousin, money. It is dangerous because it is exclusive, and self-reinforcing. Technologists, of all people, should be the first to recognize how vacuous and pernicious such an anti-egalitarian approach is, and should be repelled by it: because we know how empty and meaningless our own relative merit, based on our fortuitous collection of specialized knowledge and skills, is. Am I really better, morally, ethically, or spiritually, than someone who _doesn't_ know how to patch an Oracle database? Even the landscapers blowing leaves into the street next door know that forcibly asserting ownership of another human being is wrong, yet this seems to have escaped the superior intellect of "the Founding Fathers" (who my own ancestors, having emigrated as impoverished peasants from Italy at the turn of the last century, had no connection with: something they sadly later forgot). Jefferson was a slaver, an oppressor of the weak, and a rapist, and the majority of high society and Congress were (and are) accessories before and after the fact. The US Civil War was an aberration, because it was one of the few times that the schemes of one part of the oligarchy coincided with the growing disgust of the commons with a horrendous institution (chattel slavery). The moral outrage over slavery seen in the diaries of Union soldiers didn't disappear with the Confederacy's defeat, but the interests of the oligarchs worked against the success of Reconstruction and the later imposition of Jim Crow (whose legal framework provided inspiration for 20th century fascism in places like Germany). We loosely categorize ancient Rome as a civilization. It was an oligarchic slave state, as were the later European and American empires. The main difference between them seems to be the mechanisms of slavery employed. In 21st century America we still have a feudal model of governance in most workplaces, and in governments bought and paid for by unfettered oligarch cash, the will of the common people, to the extent that its expression is able to pierce the corporate media bubble, is mostly ignored or explained away.

vinay_ys 3y ago
You sound like James Burnam.
6502nerdface 3y ago

wwwpatdelcom 3y ago

Something that we Americans are very conveniently forgetful of is that America didn't just pop out of no where on July 4th, 1776, there was in fact a huge history of us being England and that includes every single quote from every single founding father, there was additional historical context and ignoring that is basically propaganda on the level of Soviet Union or North Korea style propaganda, it's just that we don't think it's propaganda because we think we're exceptional. I became more skeptical of this piece of propaganda when I saw the top comment from prominent COVID origins conspiracy theorist and statistics misuser on Substack (who evidently uses the pseudonym Yuri Bezmenov?) on the post, as well as likes from Academic Capture extroidinaire Richard Hanania, of the Salem Institute at UT-Austin (a business school whose name is emblazoned by a now dead billionaire to whom I as a Minnesota citizen, personally pay taxes to his estate to every time I buy food, in the form of subsidies to his Vikings stadium). Basically I'm sitting here being lectured by people about Aristocracies while I, as a nobody schlub, pay taxes to a private party they are friends with every time I get groceries, and meanwhile see schools nearby me go on strike, there is no free daycare in Minneapolis while there is in other cities nearby because, "it's not fiscally responsible?" Ok, well I'm not an "economist," at an, "institute," so what do I know? Anyway, I was very confused after reading this by the claim that Jefferson would not have considered himself part of the Artificial Aristocracy so I had to read about his family history. From Monticello.org: https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/jeffersons-ancestry/ https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers... > The origins of Jefferson's ancestors might be uncertain, but there can be no doubt that within a couple of generations the family had risen from the humble rank of "middling planter" to the county elite, and within another to the very pinnacle of society. Their spectacular rise in fortune was the result of hard work, advantageous marriage, and sheer good luck So what I read this is, is his family were not part of the English Aristocracy, (like Washington) but go in early on Virginia Real Estate in the 1600s, which allowed Jefferson to become part of the Colonial Aristocracy (though not the formal English Aristocracy). So Jefferson is saying, "no, that Aristocracy is not cool, bro, our Aristocracy is the cool one." It also seems that some of Jefferson's ancestors were very anti-monarchy during the English Civil War, and lost a lot of fortune upon the restoration of the monarchy, so it's super understandable why Jefferson would take this position. The thing is, I believe Jefferson may have become a dinosaur in his own time, writing letters to Adams to re-assure himself, but actually just discussing the types of ideas that would have appealed to some of the characters straight out of Barry Lyndon. E.g., he probably was witnessing Aristocrats getting their heads cut off in France and going, "no we're not those guys, we're a natural Aristocracy, it's totally different man!" Jefferson was a huge Ancient Rome nerd because he was interested in creating a society that was durable, where other societies had failed an while I believe that some of his ideas that lead to a sort of weighting of rural areas does provide stability, because cities always end up being more powerful than rural areas, I'm pretty sure that the 1800's and early 1900's was a round rejection of Aristocracy, but of course there's no way he could have seen that. Venture Capitalists, pretend Professors from UT-Austin business school who are hired help to form an intellectual framework behind Rick Scott's agendas, they know better than this, and they should do better. This is basically a circle jerk with almost zero self-awareness about how Universally hated Aristocracy of any kind is, it's like how John Bolton has been talking about running for President in 2024, there is absolutely zero self awareness about how hated and loathed a particular idea is. Edit: Oh yeah, and also, you can't mention that Jefferson owned slaves and so maybe not every idea that came off of the top of his head should be celebrated because evidently just acknowledging that fact might be considered, "woke" according to Hanania, most likely.