USA Founders: ‘Natural Aristocracy’ Protects Freedom

Free enterprise only thrives in a free society underpinned by property rights. These rights require a system of checks and balances on government, to enforce contracts and prevent usurpations of power.

Americans are typically familiar with the formal checks in the Constitution, such as the compromises between large and small states, as well as our three branches of government. But one of the more abstract checks that our founders and ancestors also understood, from the Roman Republic to England, is the natural interplay between the commons and what Jefferson called the “natural aristocracy.”

The people must have a check on the elite, and the most talented must take on leadership roles to guide and check the worst instincts of the masses. Today, this balance is broken.

Without the participation of our most talented citizens in government leadership and nuanced policy debate, we get stupid decisions. And without a check on the commons, we can lose everything to populists and demagogues, who would destroy the checks and balances—along with property rights and the system that enables free enterprise and prosperity.

The Jeffersonian Framework

Thomas Jefferson distinguished between an artificial aristocracy based on “wealth and birth”, and a natural aristocracy grounded in “virtue and talents.” Of natural aristocrats, he wrote: “I consider [them] as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society.” Of artificial aristocracy, he warned it was “a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendancy.”

Jefferson acted on this belief, establishing the University of Virginia to help cultivate the next generation of natural aristocrats by giving them the skills to govern well and the virtue to do so honestly. At any level of government, Jefferson thought it necessary to find the best people to administer it; their effectiveness would be the bulwarks against despots and demagogues.

Madison agreed, writing that the government should “obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good.” The founders understood that certain people possessed greater talents than others, and that this was relevant to governance. They also knew that without proper checks and balances, any system could descend into tyranny or corruption. Natural aristocrats were needed to serve as guardians of the constitutional order, which allows free enterprise, and the necessary rights that underpin it.

Historical Precedent: The Balance at Work

The Roman statesman Cicero understood this dynamic. Pure democracy could become tyrannical—seizing property and destroying commerce—while pure aristocracy could breed corruption and instability. Cicero advocated for a “mixed constitution” that balanced power between them. A ruling class with pride in the republic and the temperance and virtue to be good rulers was essential.

Great Britain had a mixed constitution, with the King, the Nobility, and Parliament ruling the nation in a trifecta: through the Crown, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons. Americans drew inspiration from both when creating their new government.

The people would frequently elect representatives from among themselves to the House of Representatives, less frequently elect a single executive as President, and even less frequently (and originally, less directly) elect an upper body of citizens to the Senate. Fears that the Senate would become a new aristocracy were addressed by the ability of each branch to check the other. These checks relied on the assumption that natural aristocrats would be present in government to contain both democratic excess and elite corruption.

Thomas Paine said that virtue and talent were not hereditary. But the notion that aristocratic institutions cannot produce virtue is false. The British aristocracy produced Churchill and other great leaders. Churchill was chosen not by the other aristocrats, but by the people through the House of Commons.

This balance thrived during America’s Gilded Age. Rather than removing themselves from society like some of Europe’s nobility, leaders like Stanford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie spent their talents and wealth building for the next generation: venerating the system, endowing new institutions, and passing on the promise of social dynamism. They built universities and libraries. At the height of the Gilded Age, reforms like the 1883 Pendleton Act codified meritocracy in government.

The result was an explosion of wealth, with GNP increasing by 230% between 1870 and 1900, as the free market was allowed to flourish. Monopolistic distortions of competitive markets were later destroyed by men like Teddy Roosevelt, who, like Churchill, was born into the aristocracy. These leaders understood that American success depended on the capitalist system and worked to protect it so it could benefit everyone.

Today’s Imbalance

The amount of wealth created since the semiconductor revolution is unprecedented in history—both for those who built the industry, and even more importantly, for our country. For every dollar actually owned by entrepreneurs, the productivity and wealth gains by society represent tens or hundreds of times that amount. Yet most of the tech-rich elite have operated—and drawn much of America’s talent—outside of government, creating a dangerous vacuum. As our nation navigates a volatile age, we need these leaders to engage.

Without natural aristocrats honorably running institutions, unprincipled men pillage them—regulatory capture blocks lower prices and innovation, preventing, for instance, cheaper and better healthcare. Meanwhile, socialists gain followings by attacking the symptoms of this corruption—higher costs in sectors ranging from healthcare to housing—rather than the cause: a distorted market.

Without our nation’s top leadership and talent stepping up, a faux-elite fills the void, directing taxpayer dollars to their own NGOs. This money goes to “democracy scholars” at organizations made to sound official by including the word “institute.” When out of power, they spread propaganda against democratically elected leaders, and when in power, they pervert personal and market freedoms by pressuring corporations to create green initiatives, run DEI programs, and censor their political enemies.

The Choice

When the country is pillaged by unaccountable bureaucrats, special interests, and the forces of cronyism masquerading as capitalists, it’s the duty of those who know better to step in. Recently, some of our natural aristocrats have started to engage, such as Joe Gebbia—the billionaire founder of Airbnb, who is now giving his time and money as the USA’s Chief Design Officer—or other successful entrepreneurs who have joined the DoD to serve. Others build policy orgs, or help in other ways. But most innovation leaders remain on the sidelines.

Jefferson told Adams that their work mattered because they had created enduring institutions and “delivered over to our successors in life” a system capable of self-renewal. That system, designed as a means of preserving the rights of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is once again being confronted with growing socialist movements that risk destroying the foundations of free enterprise itself—property rights, free markets, and limited government.

But with better leadership and the wave of innovation sweeping our country, we could fix government policy to enable the free market to radically improve education and healthcare, cut cost of living and commute times, and enable other disinflationary measures, thereby improving the lives of our fellow citizens and disarming dangerous populist trends.

The question for those who’ve prospered thanks to our system of free enterprise is simple: Do you love the USA enough to step up and help lead, facing the slings and arrows that come with strong public stances, and defend the framework that made your success possible?

Joe Lonsdale is an American entrepreneur and venture capitalist. He co-founded companies including Palantir Technologies, Addepar, and OpenGov, and co-founded and serves as the managing partner at the technology investment firm 8VC.