Hello awebb,
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.

In alliance with others yes, on their own, no.

Opposing the initiation of force makes it hard to start a war of secession, and even harder to win one.

A. R. said it all in one sentence. Referring to the 900 pound gorilla, AKA The Soviet Union, she said, "Would you want a crime commission in which the Mafia had veto power?"

Since there is this crazy cultish practice of one group of objectivists not talking to another group of objectivists, I don 't really see it. Moreover, I 'm not sure Os (not speaking about individuals here) tend to be the agitator type. They are too busy posting on FB pictures of their lovely dinner last night or the recent blooms in their garden. All of that focus on thriving does not a revolutionary make

I agree with Dr. Kelley that it would have been hard, but probably not impossible, for Objectivists to get along sufficiently to found a country like the United States. We have enough squabbles amongst ourselves as evidence to support that. Yet, we do hang together for the most part.

You're attempting to put 20th century thinking in place of 18th century history. It won't work. Our knowledge and prejudices aren't appropriate for that time. In fact, Objectivism might have been rejected, because it's concepts are way outside the norm, even today; they would have been heresy yesterday.

This is an odd question. It is asking the equivalent of: Can Objectivists be functional, or are they relegated to being the philosophical equivalent of an ingrown toenail?

I would hope that, were it a crisis situation, functionality would trump purity.

Jan

There is much more than the writing of the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, however.

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.

I think it's hard to put ourselves that far back in time. Many conflicting interests were put on the back burner in order to pursue independence from a power viewed as "outside" our country. Rand was fighting from within a society against the mentality of the governing body of that society (among other things).

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.

Alex; I have to disagree with you and David. I think the country was founded with a significant input of 'Objectivists', understanding that the descriptive term didn’t exist at that time, and so much of the thinking of the 'Enlightenment' and what was properly 'Liberalism', as it was termed and understood at the time, aligns so closely to many of the principles of Objectivism as we understand it today.

While the 'Sons of Liberty' were the typical Northern, pragmatic business men and even a smuggler, there were only a few of them involved in the founding, though they had a large role in the push for the separation from Britain and the beginning of the actual revolution, with many of them being further aged; it was the younger Virginians that had so much influence in the document formulation and thought behind them, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry were more of the gentlemen farmer, self educated in the classical sense, and more politically astute than the Northerners. It was that astuteness as much as anything that actually accomplished the founding, particularly at the Convention and achieved the necessary compromises.

Today's Objectivist are indeed split between the purist, the intellectual Objectivist, and the 'practicing' Objectivist with the 'practicing' Objectivist having more influence in the world as the result of interest generated from the excesses of extremist of the left and the right, and the crash of 2008/9. Added to that was the positive influence on youth by Ron Paul and AS. The resulting liberty movement within the general population, leading to more individualist thought, has led more people to AR's philosophy than any effort of the purist and intellectual Objectivist. But I don't find that surprising in the least. Any significant philosophical change has always been led by a driving negative force in the society, rather than a positive influence, and often results in rebellion.

I'm mostly convinced that a pure or intellectually sound Objectivist society is as impossible as was the country imagined by Jefferson and Madison over the long run, maybe more so. The cost of an ‘open’ or ‘full’ democracy inclusive of all humans is what ultimately makes it impossible.

But could Objectivists have founded this country under the Constitition or very similar?

Yes. . we would have made it better, though, by
putting the specific prohibitions against government
encroachment on free speech, association, self-defense
and the like in a separate section called Reserved
To The People. . we would probably also have
made the Judicial Branch something less than
the lifetime-appointment mess which we have now. -- j
.

I think it is a common misconception that our forefathers 'Compromised'. No they did not. They did however find points in common that everyone agreed to. I think that is an objective view. To have such a diverse group come together and achieve a constitution like ours just simply boggles the mind against the backdrop of today's idiocies. To say that it was divine providence is certainly apt in this case.

The present Constitution was designed with a lot more thought than the Articles of Confederation that preceded it, precisely because the Confederation government collapsed in a way that could have led to ruin. Hillsdale College's free video course on the Constitution gives a fairly thorough rundown of the reasons for each part of it. It could be improved on (and if we ever get a chance to improve it, I hope we'll do as thorough a job), but it lasted longer than they expected even so.

As far as socialists among the Founding Fathers, It depends on whom you include. Thomas Paine had some socialist ideas and published them in "Rights of Man," though they weren't a major part of that work.

CBJ's mention of slavery I can only regard as Monday morning quarterbacking. If the Constitution had banned slavery I would expect only the 7 free states to ratify it. After that the country likely permanently splits, and maybe gets reconquered by Britain.

Yes; I heard Ayn Rand on a tape one time recom-
mending that people vote for Moynihan;(I think the
tape was made in, or about, 1976). As I recall, she
was campaigning against Buckley because of the
anti-abortion stand. She admitted that Moynihan
favored some kind of national health insurance,
and said,"That's pretty bad, but..." She still
thought he was better than Buckley. I do think
that Objectivists would have been much less
likely to compromise on the slavery issue, and
would have insisted on getting rid of it. And
that might have prevented the Civil War.

I do believe that Objectivists could have been a part of the founding. Goals are not that different. Some tweaks would necessarily have been needed. Such as slavery mentioned below. But I think a great question would or should be What kind of Country would Objectivists have founded and what would it look like today?

Could Objectivists have fought in the American Revolution, and even taken leading roles? Sure.

Could Objectivists have supported adoption of a constitution that permitted slavery to continue? I doubt it.

Wow that question looks familiar. That guy is brilliant.

If in the objectivist community we want the constitution that was written as our guide to be followed today then it appears that objectivists for the most part did found the united states. If I remember correctly AR did believe what she read about the founding of the united states was being destroyed by all of the politicians since about 1865 or when Lincoln was president.

Please forgive me if I am oversimplifying, but I don't see any problem here. A group of individuals working separately and together to escape unfair taxation and create better lives for themselves. Isn't that Galt's Gulch?