Jefferson and America's Lost Idea: Natural Aristocracy

40 pointsby the_bookmakerover 1 year ago

12 comments

woodruffwover 1 year 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]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_8" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_8</a>

评论 #37540392 未加载

评论 #37534203 未加载

评论 #37535481 未加载

评论 #37534643 未加载

ncphilover 1 year 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.

评论 #37535111 未加载

评论 #37534911 未加载

评论 #37534824 未加载

评论 #37534963 未加载

Frummyover 1 year 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.

dash2over 1 year 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] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton</a>

评论 #37534387 未加载

palmfacehnover 1 year ago

<a href="https://mises.org/library/natural-elites-intellectuals-and-state" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://mises.org/library/natural-elites-intellectuals-and-s...</a>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.

motohagiographyover 1 year 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.

评论 #37534660 未加载

bradley13over 1 year 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.

评论 #37534536 未加载

评论 #37534524 未加载

评论 #37534886 未加载

jshaqawover 1 year 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!

评论 #37534309 未加载

lukeasrodgersover 1 year 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.

评论 #37535256 未加载

评论 #37534646 未加载

jgalt212over 1 year ago

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

jonstewartover 1 year 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.

wwwpatdelcomover 1 year 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:<a href="https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/jeffersons-ancestry/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jeffers...</a>> 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 luckSo 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.