"No. I am unsure that a state run by Quakerism could survive - much like Constantine in his conversion to Christianity, the theory of just wars was necessary to defend a state, and Quakerism would have to come to terms with such compromises - in other words, would have to become less Quaker in order to sustain a state"
You might be interested to know (and even edit in) that there are several substantially different branches of Quakers in America, and that Richard Nixon hailed from one of those branches. It adds some anecdotal evidence to support your conjecture, because, yes, a Quaker has "run the west" in some sense, and he was already compromised before he got there, and he further compromised once he got there.
Also, I'd say the idea that Quakers simply talked other people into good actions is a motivated or reductive reading of history. And the Quakers would have very sharp disagreements with EA consequentialism and utilitarianism, so it's a strange one to attach to EA.
But I think you captured the basic comparison that Quakers were peaceful, thoughtful, seriously committed and idealistic, and I enjoyed finding out that Cadbury is a Quaker company, so thank you!
[Epistemic status: I'm not a Quaker. I'm just a guy who reads about them. Also, I have mixed feelings about Richard Nixon, including some positive ones to go with the negative, so this isn't an attack on Nixon.]
Worth noting that there exist precedents to some of this in rationalist- and EA-adjacent spheres, especially in some things Benjamin Ross Hoffman has written; a post that pushes back on some of what you've said or implied might be 'Why I am not a Quaker'. Link: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6XvnqW28e2twiv6ww/why-i-am-not-a-quaker-even-though-it-often-seems-as-though-i
"No. I am unsure that a state run by Quakerism could survive - much like Constantine in his conversion to Christianity, the theory of just wars was necessary to defend a state, and Quakerism would have to come to terms with such compromises - in other words, would have to become less Quaker in order to sustain a state"
You might be interested to know (and even edit in) that there are several substantially different branches of Quakers in America, and that Richard Nixon hailed from one of those branches. It adds some anecdotal evidence to support your conjecture, because, yes, a Quaker has "run the west" in some sense, and he was already compromised before he got there, and he further compromised once he got there.
You might find this book illuminating: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1889380.The_Quakers_in_America
Also, I'd say the idea that Quakers simply talked other people into good actions is a motivated or reductive reading of history. And the Quakers would have very sharp disagreements with EA consequentialism and utilitarianism, so it's a strange one to attach to EA.
But I think you captured the basic comparison that Quakers were peaceful, thoughtful, seriously committed and idealistic, and I enjoyed finding out that Cadbury is a Quaker company, so thank you!
[Epistemic status: I'm not a Quaker. I'm just a guy who reads about them. Also, I have mixed feelings about Richard Nixon, including some positive ones to go with the negative, so this isn't an attack on Nixon.]
The monstrous god of quakerism shows no altruism towards non-christians.